M/S DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PLANMAN HR PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The Ground of appeal is as under: 1. “On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,91,59,691/- made by the AO without appreciating the fact that the assessee company did not comply with the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of payments to be made on or before the due date as prescribed under the law of such funds on account of employees contribution towards provident Fund or any other fund mentioned u/s 2(24)(x).”

The Assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee paid the Employees’ contribution to provident fund, ESIC and professional tax before the due date of furnishing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) held that in view of the legal position in case of CIT vs. M/s. Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 ITR 268 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance and deleted the same.

The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made an addition of Rs. 7,91,59,691/- on account of late deposit of PF, ESIC and professional tax. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case is not covered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Judgment in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. But the Ld. DR failed to distinguish the facts as regards to the present assessee to the said case.

The Ld. AR submitted that the case is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Judgment in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. in fact in this matter also the assessee made payments of the PF and ESIC before the return was filed. The said finding is given by the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties. We have perused the Judgment in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. The CIT(A) has correctly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also that of Apex Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 ITR 268. The Assessing Officer has not at all distinguished the facts of the assessee and the facts mentioned in these two judgments. There is clear finding by the CIT(A) that the assessee paid the Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC and Professional Tax before the due date of furnishing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

In result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.