PRAGYA SAVITA,JABALPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1) ,JABALPUR , JABALUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 21/JAB/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 May 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The assessee's counsel submitted that the entire demand had been deposited and the matter settled, hence sought to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the JCIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal against the ADIT, CPC's order. The assessee had paid employee contributions for EPF and ESIC, but with a small delay. The appeal was also delayed by 318 days due to family health issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction for employee contributions of EPF and ESIC deposited with a delay, and if the appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vi),Section 139(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 250,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

Before: SH. KUL BHARAT & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Hearing: 20.05.2025Pronounced: 22.05.2025

A.Y. 2021-22 Pragya Savita, vs. Asst. Commissioner of 1197-A, Sadar, Modi Bada, Cantt, Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482001 Jabalpur PAN:AXYPS7485A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Ashok Tiwari, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 20.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27.10.2023, dismissing the appeal of the assessee that was filed against the order of the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) dated 17.12.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. That the learned CIT (A) NAFC was wrong in law for not allowing the deduction for payment of Rs. 56,39,017/- under section 36(1)(vi) on account of employee contribution of EPF and ESIC amount. Whereas the assessee had deposited the employee contribution of EPF & ESIC on or before due date for furnishing return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of Income tax act, 1961. Employer is entitled for deduction.

2. That the both employee contribution EPF Rs.49,38,777/- and ESIC Rs.70,0240/- Total Rs. 59,39,107/-which has been deposited with a small delay due to unavoidable circumstances and covid-19. Whereas the assessee had deposited the employee contribution before filing of the return.

A.Y. 2021-22 Pragya Savita 3. The both contribution has been deposited with a minimum delay. But the employee contribution of EPF & ESIC deposited before filing of the income tax return, therefore the employee contribution total amount Rs.59,39,107/-has been restricted by learned CIT (A) is unjustified.

4. That the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Nikhil Mohine V/s Dy CIT (IN & 38/JBP/2021 dt. 18/11/2021 that assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of deduction for payment on account of employee contribution of EPF and ESIC when contribution had been paid prior to filing of the return.

5. Charges of interest under section 234A, 234B &234C. That the unreasonable high interest charged against the principle of natural justice, the interest U/s 234A Rs.1,60,801.00,U/s 234B Rs.7,81,772.00 and U/s 234C Rs.1,59,618.00 Total amount is Rs,11,02,191.00 this interest amount may please be dropped.

6.

That it is requested may allow to produce extra citations, grounds and documents brief in favour of the case at the time of hearing of this case.”

2.

The appeal is delayed by 318 days. The assessee has filed an application stating that due to health problems in her family, she was unable to take a timely decision to file an appeal. However, after the medical recovery, she had managed to consult tax advisors and could only thereafter take a decision to file an appeal. Accordingly, it was prayed that the delay in the filing of the appeal may kindly be condoned. An affidavit was also filed. After considering the reasons cited by the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned.

3.

When the case was taken up for hearing, Sh. Ashok Tiwari, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) submitted that the entire outstanding demand in the case, amounting to Rs.17,61,618/-, had been deposited by the assessee vide Challan No.0445 on 3.02.2025 and the matter had been settled. Therefore, the assessee was not desirous of pursuing the appeal any further. Accordingly, permission was sought to withdraw the appeal.

4.

Sh. Alok Bhura, ld. Sr. DR (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. Sr. DR’) had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

5.

We have duly considered the submissions of the ld. AR and accordingly, after hearing the ld. Sr. DR, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 2

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →