BABIAN,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (1), LUCKNOW-NEW
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARYBabian B-155, Bhootnath Market, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016. v. Income Tax Officer (1) Lucknow New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AACFB9247N (Appellant) (Respondent)
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National
Faceless
Appeal
Centre
(NFAC),
Delhi dated
14.09.2022
pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the addition made by way of disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund under section 143(1)(a) is outside the scope of the provisions and, therefore, for this reason alone, the same deserves to be deleted.
2. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in making the disallowance of Rs.1,92,422/- towards employees contribution to Provident Fund, which was deposited slightly late by the appellant.
3. That the Id. CIT(A) has not appreciated that during the relevant assessment year provisions of Section 43B were applicable for allowance of deduction, if the deposit of dues was made within the due date of filing of the return, the same was a fully allowable deduction.
4. That the Id. CIT(A) has misinterpreted the amendments made by the Finance
Act, 2021 by adding the Explanation 2 in Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Sec. 43B by treating the same to having retrospective effect which is contrary to the intent of the Legislature as explained in the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance
Act, 2021. 5. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeal)-NFAC is without affording Proper opportunity to the appellant, and is bad in law.
Page 2 of 3
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the ground of appeal before or at any time during the course of hearing.” 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the delay in deposit of EPF Contribution of the Employee. 3. The facts giving rise in the present appeal are that in this case the Assessing Officer made adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) thereby making disallowance of the employees contribution towards provident fund being delay in deposit by the assessee. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution of the appeal. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, an application dated 22.04.2025 is placed on record, requesting withdrawal of the appeal on account of the assessee is being in process of settlement under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Revenue has no objection for withdrawal of the appeal. 5. In view of the submission made by the Ld. Authorized Representative under the instruction of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2025. [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY]
[KUL BHARAT]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
VICE PRESIDENT
DATED: 30/04/2025
Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS)
Page 3 of 3