A S INFOTECH E- SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Year : 2019-20] A S Infotech E-Solution Pvt.ltd., vs CPC, 61, Ground Floor, Sant Nagar, Bangalore. East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065. PAN-AAKCA1067E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Amit Goel, CA & Shri Nippun Mittal, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2022 ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance of Rs.1,57,277/- made in the Intimation u/s 143(1) without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1) and CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not holding so.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming

the addition of Rs. 1,57,277/- made by the assessing officer/CPC on the account of disallowance u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter/modify the existing ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee had filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 on 24.10.2019 declaring a total income of Rs.3,21,769/-. Thereafter, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Central Processing Centre (“CPC”), Bengaluru who made adjustment regarding delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESI.

4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition.

“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.”

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.