Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed, confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3). The additions pertained to employees' contribution to Provident Fund and interest on late payment of TDS. The assessee contended that the PF disallowance was due to a typographical error regarding the payment date.
Held
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund was not justified as the payment was made within the due time prescribed under the Act, with the initial incorrect date being a typographical error. Consequently, no disallowance was called for.
Key Issues
Whether disallowance of employees' PF contribution due to a typographical error in the payment date is sustainable. Confirmation of addition on account of interest on late payment of TDS.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-12 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [here-in-after referred to as Ld. CIT(Appeals)] was not justified and grossly erred in dismissing the appeal which is bad-in-law and against principal of natural justice equity, thereby confirming the action of the A.O. for the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is incomplete and also bad on facts.
1. HLE Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 2.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in by accepting the addition on account of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund Rs. 5,43,881/- delay typographically error which is incorrect and amp; bad-in- law and needs to be deleted in the interest of natural justice and equity.
3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in not justified and erred in confirming the addition on account of Interest on Late Payment of TDS of Rs. 11,907/-.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Chemicals, Engineering Goods, Fertilizers, Plants etc. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 30.12.2019. During assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed employees’ contribution to Provident Fund of Rs. 5,43,881/- and interest on late payment of TDS of Rs. 11,907/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed these additions.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In this case, the amount on account of PF has been disallowed owing to a typographical error showing that the amount has been paid on 20.08.2016, whereas the actual payment has been made on 12.08.2016. On going through the bank accounts, we find that since the amounts have been paid within the due time prescribed under the Act, no disallowance is called for. The disallowance was necessitated by the Revenue owing to incorrect data mentioned by the assessee.
HLE Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– Since the facts have been reconciled and it is proved that the payment having been made within the statutory due date prescribed under the relevant Act, we hold that no disallowance is called for in this case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026
Sd/- Sd/-