MANISHA TYAGI,DELHI vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 12(4), NEW DELHI, C.R.. BUILDING,. I.P.ESTATE, NEW. DELHI 110002, DELHI

The present appeals are filed by the above mentioned assessees feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by appellate authority for various assessment years mentioned hereinabove.

1. “That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs.1,31,24,654 on account of delay in payment of employee's contribution to provident fund as per provision of section 36(l)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in relying on the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 read with law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vatika Township Private Limited 367 ITR 466. 1.3 Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the submission of the appellant wherein it has been stated that the payment was made within the due date (i.e. on 14-08-2017) however due to system glitches the PF

6 authorities could able to generate challan at later date (i.e. on 16-08-2017). The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing, and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

3. Similar grounds with different amounts and assessment years have been raised in other appeals but however, the sum & substance and the issues involved in all the appeals are identical.

4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that the sole grievance of the assessee is confirming the additions on account of delay in deposit of employee’s contribution towards provident fund and ESI fund.

5. Before us, Learned AR submitted that additions have been made in the intimation issued by CPC, Bangalore u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the reason that the contribution received towards PF/ESIC by the assessee from its employees was not deposited before the due date. He submitted that though there has been delay in deposit of PF/ESIC Contributions but all the contributions received by the assessee from its employees, have been deposited with the appropriate

7 authorities before the filing of return of income by the assessee. He therefore submitted that since the amounts have been deposited before the filing of return of income, no disallowance is called for and for aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision of Azamgarh Steel & Power vs. CPC in dated 31.05.2021 and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265 (Delhi) and various other decisions.

8 judicial pronouncements by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018 held as under:-

In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus AIMIL Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2022.