INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, 10.1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आअसं.1959/िदʟी/2024(िन.व. 2022-23)
Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd.,
53-54, Delhi Press Building, PH-IV,
Udyog Vihar, Haryana 122015
PAN: AAACI-1530-L

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 10(1), C R Building, Delhi 110001

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate,

Ms. Somya Jain & Shri Shivam Gupta,

Chartered Accountants
Ůितवादी Ȫारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
16/01/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
15/04/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2,
Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 26.02.2024, for assessment year 2022-23. 2. Shri Rohit Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee had filed its return for AY 2022-23 on 23.10.2022. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had income of Rs.195.67 lakhs,

2
however, the same was set off with brought forwarded losses, hence, the assessee filed its return of income declaring NIL income. The return of the assessee was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) vide intimation dated
29.07.2023 u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The CPC disallowed set off of brought forwarded losses and determined the business income of assessee at Rs. 1,95,67,15,034/-.
Against intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the assessee filed rectification application before the AO on 26.12.2022. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2023 without assigning any specific reason. Against the said order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide impugned order partly accepted appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) rejected assessee’s claim of deduction with regard to employer’s contribution towards Provident Fund/ESI. The ld. counsel submits that there was one day delay in deposit of employer’s share of PF as the portal was not working. The assessee was required to deposit PF by 15.06.2021, whereas, the assessee made contribution on 16.06.2021. The Tribunal in the case of Kangra
Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3528/Del/2024 for AY 2019-20 vide order dated 29.11.2024 in similar circumstances granted relief to the assessee, where the contribution towards PF was late by one day. The ld. Counsel further submitted that, in the Audit Report for relevant period, the date has been wrongly mentioned as January 2021 instead of January 2022. The CPC held it to be deemed delay, whereas Audit Report for FY 2021-22 could not, by any stretch of imagination, indicate January 2021—it must refer to January 2022. He submitted that there was no delay in submission of the Audit Report.
3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department submitted that in so far as delay in contribution towards PF/ESI the issue is now settled by the 3
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
vs. CIT 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Once there is delay in contribution of PF/ESI the same has to be disallowed.
4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee in grounds no. 2 and 3 of appeal has assailed denial of deduction of Rs.39,59,510/- claimed in respect of contribution towards provident fund and other welfare fund.
The ld. Counsel submitted that there was one day delay in deposit of provident fund as the portal was not working. Hence, delay in deposit of contribution cannot be attributed to the assessee. To substantiate his contention that there was technical glitch in the portal, no documentary evidence was furnished by the assessee.
5. I find in the case of Kangra Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), the Division Bench of the Tribunal held that where there was one day delay in deposit of PF/ESI due to technical glitch in the EPF portal. The benefit of deduction was allowed to the assessee. For the sake of completeness the relevant extract of the Tribunal order is reproduced herein below:-
“10. From examination of record in light of aforesaid contention, it is crystal clear that Learned CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs.8,37,196/- made by Learned AO on account of disallowance of expenses for EPF, late deposit. It is material fact that employee’s provident fund of Rs.8,37,196/- for the month of May, 2021 could not be deposited in due time on 15/06/2021 and was deposited on the very next day i.e 16/06/2021 by the assesse due to technical glitches in EPF portal. As per ratio of Judgment in FIL India Business &
Research Services (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, it is well settled that when the assessee had deposited the employees dues before the prescribed due dates but due to the glitches at the end of the respective

4
authorities, the amounts were reversed by the bank, then the assessee cannot be penalized with the addition on account of delayed deposits.
Therefore, impugned orders is set aside.”
6. I find that in the case of Magic Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.
654/Del/2024 for AY 2022-23 the Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2024, Tribunal allowed benefit of deduction to the assessee there was one day delay towards deposit of PF where the assessee was prevented to make online payment owing to technical glitch in the provident fund online payment platform. The Division Bench while granted relief to the assessee held asunder:-
“7. In the light of the material available on record, we have no iota of doubt that the attempt to make timely payment of contribution towards PF contribution by assessee stands vindicated. Thus, where the assessee was prevented to make online payment owing to technical glitches in the Provident Fund online payment platform, we see no reason to penalize the assessee for the unresponsive platform of the Provident Fund Department. It is trite that an assessee cannot be asked to do what is impossible for him to do. The provisions of Section 36(1)(va) thus requires to be read down appropriately in tune with doctrine of impossibility.”
7. The Division Bench of Tribunal in the case of Protiviti India Member P. Ltd. vs.
ACIT in ITA No. 2958 & 2959/Del/2022 for AY 2017-18 & 2018-19 vide order dated
14.02.2024 in similar circumstances held that where there is delay in deposit of PF and ESI within prescribed due date on account of failure of website portal of PF/ESI, the benefit of deduction under Income Tax cannot be denied to the assessee.
8. Thus, in all the above citied case, the respective appellants/assessee were able to substantiate that there was glitch in websites/portal of PF/ESI which prevented them to deposit the amount of contribution within time. However, in 5
the present case except from bald assertion no documentary evidence is filed by the assessee. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to AO for limited purpose for assessee to show that due to technical glitch, the assessee could not deposit employee’s contribution within time. If the assessee is able to discharge its onus, the AO shall allow assessee’s claim of deduction.
9. In the result, impugned order is modified and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 15th day of April, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 15.04.2025

NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Dy./Asstt.