Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Year : 2018-19] M/s. Diamond Auto Industries, vs DCIT, C/o B.K. Kapur & Co., Chartered CPC, Bengaluru. Accountants, 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. PAN-AABFD6698J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Madhav Kapur, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 22.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) dated 29.10.2021.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT/CPC in making aggregate addition of Rs.7,72,080/- on account of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF before the due date of filing the return and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of Page | 1 natural justice and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and latest law in this regard.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT/CPC in making aggregate addition of Rs.7,72,080/- on account of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF, before the due date of filing the return, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual ground.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the order u/s 143(1)(a) passed by Ld. DCIT/CPC dated 05.12.2019, as the jurisdiction was not validly assumed as per law.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT/CPC in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. That the assessee reserves it’s right to add, amend/modify the grounds of appeal.”
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Central Processing Centre (“CPC”), Bengaluru vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19 made adjustment regarding delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESI.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition.
Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. Sr. DR vehemently submitted that law is clear in this respect and he relied upon the decision of Ld.CIT(A).
I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authority below. The issue in this appeal is related to disallowance of expenditure on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution related to EPF & ESI. The issue is squarely covered by the judgement of 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, where it is 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 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.”
Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedent, I hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.