JAGMOHAN MOTORS PVT. LTD.,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, ROHTAK CIRCLE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 466/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2018-19Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, with the consent of both parties, set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the evidence of employer's contribution deposit, refer to Form 3CD and challans, and provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the re-assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee faced an addition of Rs. 68,63,749/- under Section 36(1)(va) for late deposit of PF and ESI contributions by the AO, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the employer's contribution was paid before the due date of return, and therefore, the addition should be restricted to Rs. 29,54,118/- relating to the employee's contribution.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 36(1)(va) for late deposit of PF and ESI contributions should be restricted to the employee's contribution, considering the employer's contribution was deposited before the due date of return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr
Hearing: 15.05.2024

Appellant by : Shri Naveen Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. D.R. 08.05.2024 Date of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R

PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY – JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19, whereby and where under, the addition to the tune of Rs.68,63,749/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act was made by the AO, has been confirmed for A.Y. 2018-19.

Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 2 - 2. The brief facts leading to this case is that the addition has been made in respect of late deposit of employer and employee’s contribution of PF and ESI to the tune of Rs.68,63,749/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, admittedly, the appellant has paid employer’s contribution before the due date of return. In that view of the matter, the addition is initially liable to be restricted to the tune of Rs.29,54,118/- in respect of late deposit of employee’s contribution of PF and ESI and not Rs.68,63,749/- as has been conceded by the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee. It is further contended that the above fact of depositing employer’s shares of ESI and PF is also mentioned by the auditors in Column No. 4 of Clause 21(ii) in Form 3CD for A.Y. 2018-19. Thus, the Learned Counsel for the assessee prays for setting aside the issue to the file of the Learned AO to decide the issue afresh. Such prayer made by the Learned AR has not been opposed by the Learned DR with all his fairness.

3.

Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this appeal by setting aside the issue to the file of the Learned AO to adjudicate the same considering the fact of depositing employer’s contribution of PF and ESI by the appellant, having regard to the Form 3CD and the total Challans in respect of such deposit made by the appellant. While making assessment, the Learned AO is further directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter.

Jagmohan Motors Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3 - 4. In the result, this assessee’s appeal is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →