RAJESH KUMAR GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 193/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 February 2024AY 2019-20Bench: us, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that due date needs to be verified for making the impugned disallowance. For this, reliance was placed on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. VVDN Technologies ITA No. 164/DEL/2023 and in the case of M/s Benson Movers Pvt Ltd 2710/DEL/2020. 5. As mentioned elsewhere, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra]. However, for the sake of verification, we direct the Assessing Offi4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue regarding delayed PF/ESIC deposits is settled by the Supreme Court. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the exact due dates specified in the PF Act and then decide the matter after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of an addition made due to the delayed deposit of PF/ESIC contributions beyond their statutory due dates for A.Y. 2019-20.

What were the issues?

Confirmation of addition for delayed deposit of PF/ESIC contributions and the need to verify the due dates under the PF Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

PF Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘H’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rohtagi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.02.2024Pronounced: 21.02.2024

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 10.01.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on account of delay in deposit of PF/ESIC beyond due date.

3.

This issue is no more res integra as the quarrel is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision in the case of Checkmate Services [Pvt] Ltd 448 ITR 518.

4.

However, before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that due date needs to be verified for making the impugned disallowance. For this, reliance was placed on the decision of the co- ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. VVDN Technologies and in the case of M/s Benson Movers Pvt Ltd 2710/DEL/2020.

5.

As mentioned elsewhere, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra]. However, for the sake of verification, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the due date specified in the PF Act and decide the issue accordingly after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 21.02.2024.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →