INNOVISION LIMITED,DELHI vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055268961(1), dated 21.08.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Delay of 504 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

The assessee’s ground nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are hereby rejected as general in nature.

Next comes the first and foremost issue between the parties in the assessee’s 3rd substantive ground seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing/adding its ESI/PF claim on account of late payment thereof amounting to Rs. 2,29,01,826/- in assessment order dated 08.09.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Suffice to say, learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion indicates that the assessee had deposited the impugned sum very well after the due date in the corresponding statute. And that the hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) has already settled the very issue in the Revenue’s favour

The assessee’s 4th substantive ground pleads that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on the facts in refusing section 80JJAA deduction of Rs.3,26,71,804/- as per CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. We make it clear that no such disallowance is forthcoming either in the conclusive para 11 of the assessment discussion nor in the lower appellate findings. Rejected accordingly.