Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA&
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (THROUGH E-COURT) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Khatariya Ankurbhai Dhanjibhai Vs. ITO Madhav Corp, 90, Ambapar, Ward-1, Anjar-Kutch, Gujarat-370110 Gandhidham-Kutch [PAN No. DZKPK0483B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2023 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:-
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi arising out of the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-1, Gandhidham under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2017-18 whereby and whereunder the addition made to the tune of Rs. 2,52,982/- towards contribution to Provident Fund and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been confirmed.
We have heard the rival submission made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant material available on record.
The brief facts leading to the case is that the assessee engaged in the business of contractor service provider filed its Income Tax Return
Khatariya Ankurbhai Dhanjibhai vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2 - declaring income at Rs. 9,65,980/- for the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer found from the records that the certain employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund has been made beyond due date prescribed under the P. F. Act. Show-cause, therefore, was issued to the assessee as to why the late deposit of P.F. amount to the tune of Rs. 2,52,982/- should not be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee upon which the assessee filed the details wherefrom it appears that the impugned amount of Rs. 2,52,982/- consist of employer’s share and administrative charges of Rs. 1,33,698/- and employees’ share of P.F. Rs. 1,19,284/-. The short point in this particular case is, therefore, whether the employers shares of P.F. and administrative charges which was not deposited within the due date prescribed under the P.F. Act is liable to be added or not. In fact, the statutory provision speaks about deposit of employees’ contribution by the employer in regard to the P.F. account within the due date prescribed under the P.F. Act in default addition under Section 36(1)(va) will be made. In this particular case alongwith employees’ contribution of Rs. 1,19,284/- the employers share and administrative charges of Rs. 1,33,698/- approx has been added by the authorities below which in our considered opinion is not as per statutory provision prescribed in this regard.
In that view of the matter we are inclined to pass order in terms of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R. in restoring the issue to the file of the Ld. AO to ascertain the employers share and administrative charges which has been wrongly added by the authorities below and to delete the same in accordance with law. We also further note that the Ld. D.R. with all his
Khatariya Ankurbhai Dhanjibhai vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3 - fairness has not objected to such prayer made by the Ld. A.R. We, therefore, pass orders accordingly. Assessee’s appeal is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.