T.P. ROY CHOWDHURY & COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA

Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member

I.T.A. No.2402/Kol/2025
Assessment Year: 2017-18

T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd…....…………………....Appellant
53/b, 1st Floor, Mirza Ghalib street,
Kol-16. [PAN: AAACT9370R]
vs.
DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata…..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent

Appearances by:
Shri Arvind Agarwal, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Shri S. B Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : December 29, 2025
Date of pronouncing the order : December 30, 2025

आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 24.04.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Income Tax
Return for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.10.2017, declaring a total income at Rs. 6,19,94,350/-. The Assessing Officer found from the Tax Audit Report that the assessee has paid employees contribution of Rs.8,81,926/- towards PF and towards ESI for Rs.1,12,067/- after the due date so the delayed deposit of PF is treated as income of assessee as per provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section of 2(24)(x), and a I.T.A. No.2402/Kol/2025
T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd

2
sum of Rs.9,93,993/- was disallowed and added back to total income of the assessee.
3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order dated 24.04.2025. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an application u/s 154 of the Act stating that from the delayed payment of Rs.9,93,993/- as alleged by the Assessing
Officer, a sum of Rs.2,97,313/- towards ESI/PF due date is on 15.08.2016 but due to national holiday, the assessee could not deposit the same on 15.08.2016 and subsequently on the next date i.e. on 16.08.2016 the same was deposited. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the amount as per provisions of the Act. However, the ld.
CIT(A) did not consider the issue and rejected the rectification application filed by the assessee.
4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR stated that the present issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the High Courts including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in the case of M/s Aero Club vs. ACIT in ITA 267/2013
wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that payable towards ESI/PF fell due on a National Holiday i.e 15.08.2018 and deposit made on the following date i.e. 16.08.2018 was amenable to deduction by allowing the relief to the assessee. The ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the assessee may be entitled relief in the instant case also in view of the above-stated decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and could not controverted the fact.

I.T.A. No.2402/Kol/2025
T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd

3
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that the Id. CIT(A) dismissed the rectification petition of the assessee filed for rectification of the mistake apparent from record for not allowing the deposit of Employees' Contribution to PF &
ESI of Rs.2,97,313/- deposited on 16th August 2016 instead of payment due on being national holiday on 15th August 2016. We find from the cited decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s
Aero Club vs. ACIT (supra) that under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court granted relief to the assessee while relying on the decision of PCIT-7 vs. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. in ITA
No.12/2023 holding as under:
“4. We had the occasion to deal with a similar question of law in ITA No.
12/2023, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs Pepsico India Holding Pvt.
Ltd. The observations made by us therein, being apposite, are extracted hereafter:
“5. Mr Deepak Chopra, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that in this particular matter, since the deposit of the employee’s contribution towards the provident fund was made on 16.08.2018, following a National Holiday i.e., 15.08.2018, the deduction claimed would have to be allowed, as steps had been taken by the respondent/assessee towards the deposit of the said amount on 14.08.2018. 6. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that since the respondent/assessee had deposited the employee’s contribution towards the provident fund amounting to Rs. 1,56,12,404/- on 16.08.2018, the Assessing Officer (AO) had rightly disallowed the deduction, as the due date was 15.08.2018. 7. According to us, this submission advanced by Mr Rai cannot be accepted. Since the due date fell on a date which was a National Holiday, the deposit could have been made by the respondent/assessee only on the date which followed the National Holiday.
8. Mr Chopra, as noticed on 12.01.2023, was right that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would help the respondent/assessee to tide over the objections raised on behalf of the appellant/revenue.
9. Therefore, the second question of law, as framed via the order dated
12.01.2023, which is extracted hereinabove, is answered against the appellant/revenue and in favour of the respondent/assessee.

I.T.A. No.2402/Kol/2025
T P Roy Chowdhury & Company Pvt. Ltd

4
10. Accordingly, the appeal is closed, in the aforesaid terms.”
5. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the question of law, as framed, is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the respondent/revenue.”
7.1
In view of the discussion made above, we allow the claim of the assessee of Rs.2,97,313/- in respect of payments made towards ESI/PF and accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same.
Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Kolkata, the 30th December, 2025. [Rakesh Mishra]

[Sonjoy Sarma]
लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member

ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member

Dated: 30.12.2025. RS

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3.CIT (A)-
4. CIT- ,

////
By order