SUICH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed PF/ESI payments is not sustainable in light of judicial precedents. For the TDS issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim.
What were the facts?
The assessee delayed depositing employees' contribution to PF/ESI beyond the due dates but before filing the Income Tax Return. The assessee also failed to deduct TDS on interest payments made to NBFCs.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date but before the return filing date is justified. Whether disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to NBFCs is justified when recipients have declared the income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi dated 16.08.2017 for A.Y.2014-15.
The grievance of the assessee read as under :-
None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice we decided to proceed exparte. The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.
During the course of the assessment proceedings on perusal of the tax audit report the AO noticed that there was a delay in depositing employees contribution to PF/ESI as under :-
Employees Contribution Deposit Date for Amount (Rs.) Due Date ESI 1580 21-06-2013 26-06-2013 ESI 1588 21-07-2013 29-07-2013 ESI 1418. 21-08-2013 03-09-2013 ESI 1313 21-09-2013 28-09-2013 ESI 1576 21-10-2013 31-10-2013 ESI 1543 21-11-2013 04-12-2013
ESI 1311 21-12-2013 27-12-2013 ESI 1443 21-03-2014 22-03-2014 ESI 1528 21-04-2014 24-04-2014 PF 7791 25-06-2013 26-06-2013 PF 7380 25-07-2013 29-07-2013 PF 6815 25-08-2013 03-09-2013 PF 6115 25-09-2013 28-09-2013 PF 7328 25-10-2013 31-10-2013 PF 7188 25-11-2013 04-12-2013 PF 6403 25-12-2013 27-12-2013 Total 62320
Finding the delay the AO disallowed the sum of Rs.62320/- which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
This issue is no more res integra.
The sum and substances of the grievance in the captioned appeal pertains to the disallowance of PF and ESI payments on account of these payments being made beyond the due date specified under the specific parent legislation but before filing of the Income Tax Return.
Representative of the assessee and the DR fairly conceded that the issue in the captioned appeal is identical and on such concession the appeal were heard.
After carefully perusing the grievance in the captioned appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is now well settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble High Courts as follows :-
In the light of the decisions cited here in above, we direct the AO to delete the impugned disallowance in the hands of appellant.
In the light of the aforementioned judicial decisions we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.62320/-. This ground is accordingly allowed.
The AO on perusal of the details of interest payment found that the assessee has not deducted TDS on interest payment of Rs.2842756/- paid to NBFC’s details are as under and made addition of Rs.28,42, 756/- :-
Before the CIT(A) it was strongly contended that since the recipients have declared the interest income in their respective return of income, therefore, the conditions of section 201(1) of the Act have been complied and no disallowance should be made. The CIT(A) found that no supporting details have been furnished by the assessee and confirmed the addition.
We are of the considered view that since the assessee is claiming that the recipients NBFC’s have shown the interest as income in their respective returns of income then the assessee should get one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. In the interest of justice we restore this issue to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary details as per provisions of the law and the AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose.
Decision announced in the open court in the presence of Ld. Sr. DR.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026