Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Inder Singh Chandel, बनाम The ITO Kanchi Moad, VPO Barmana, Tehsil Ward Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, Himachal Bilaspur Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFUPC8162J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Anil Batra, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/03/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 27/03/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. In the present appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has in advertently disallowed the employers Share of Rs. 47,12,658/- as contribution towards EPF, which is allowable expenses U/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having been paid before the due date of filing of the Income Tax Return i.e. 31/10/2018. The expense may be allowed.
2. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed his return declaring income of Rs. 58,39,900/- dated 31-10-2018 which was processed by CPC Bangaluru at an enhanced income of Rs. 1,52,19,905/- dated 09-01-2020 making adjustment of Rs. 93,80,003/- for delayed deposits of employees’s share under ESI & PF and thereby raising additional demand of Rs. 43,03,350/-.
4. It was submitted that the assessee thereafter filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), being hopeful that the same is an allowable expense, as per various judgments prevalent at that particular time. However during the course of the appellant proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd (2022)448 ITR 518(S.C) held that these expenses were allowable on where they were paid within the due dates as prescribed under the respective statutes. As a consequence the Ld. CIT upheld the adjustment made by CPC.
It was submitted that the assessee while reporting the contribution made by the employees U/s 36(i)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Col no. 20(b) of Tax Audit Report inadvertently clubbed the share of the employers as well as employees in the gross amount of Rs. 93,80,003/- whereas the employers share was Rs. 47,12,658/- and employee share was Rs. 46,67,345/-
It was submitted that as far as employer share of PF and ESI is concerned, the same has been deposited well before the due date of filing the return of income and the same is eligible for deduction u/s 43B of the Act. It was submitted that as the entire proceedings were faceless, both before the Ld. CIT (A) & CPC, the assessee couldn’t submit the necessary evidences in support thereof. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee be allowed to place the additional evidence on records in terms of application filed under Rule 29 of the Tribunal Rules and the matter may be set-aside to the file of the AO to examine and verify the same.