SIGNATURE SERVICES SYNDICATE,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-20(4), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2522/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 October 2023AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the facts regarding the month-wise deposits of provident fund contributions were not properly considered in the impugned orders and required verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay due to the death of their CA. The core issue concerns the disallowance of employee's provident fund contributions, which the assessee claims were deposited before the due dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the employee's provident fund contributions were deposited within the due dates, and if not, whether they are allowable as a deduction. The factual accuracy of the deposit dates was disputed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 10.10.2023Pronounced: 16.10.2023

The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 01.10.2021, for the assessment year 2018-19, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “learned First

Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”), in appeal no. CIT(A), Delhi- 10/10029/2020-21, arising out of order dated 18.03.2020 u/s 143(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the ADIT, CPC Bengaluru.

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

The assessee has filed the appeal with delay, as reported by the Registry, of 317 days for which an application has been filed for condonation of the delay, supported by an affidavit. It was pointed out by learned AR that due to the death of the CA, who was representing the assessee before the learned first appellate authority, the matter was lost track and subsequently when new CA was appointed then after discovering the pass-ward etc., came to know of the order passed. The facts narrated and supported with affidavit, justify allowing the application seeking condonation of delay and accordingly ordered.

4.

At the time of hearing on the merits of the issue it was pointed out by the learned AR that amounts were deposited before the due date but due to certain observations of the auditors in audit report, relying certain wrong facts, the deposits were considered to be delayed and disallowed by the learned tax authorities u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is pertinent to mention that following facts about the deposits have been provided to us.

Provident Fund Contribution Sr. Month Employee’s Total Due Due date Employee’s Employee’s Np. Contribution share share deposited deposited before due after due date date 1 Apr-17 4,58,837.0 4,58,837.0 15-May-17 3,73,356 85,481 2 May-17 3,93,341.4 3,93,341.4 15-Jun-17 2,75,285 1,18,056 3 Jun-17 4,21,996.0 4,21,996.0 15-Jul-17 3,75,373 46,623 4 Jul-17 4,48,491.0 4,48,491.0 15-Aug-17 3,96,201 52,290 5 Aug-17 4,58,879.0 4,58,879.0 15-Sep-17 4,27,407 31,472 6 Sep-17 5,00,061.0 5,00,061.0 15-Oct-17 3,41,576 1,58,485 7 Oct-17 5,17,630.0 5,17,630.0 15-Nov-17 4,57,221 60,409 8 Nov-17 5,08,562.0 5,08,562.0 15-Dec-17 4,64,069 44,493 9 Dec-17 5,30,444.0 5,30,444.0 15-Jan-18 4,85,176 45,268 10 Jan-18 5,21,157.0 5,21,157.0 15-Feb-18 4,68,813 52,344 11 Feb-18 5,11,367.0 5,11,367.0 15-Mar-18 4,49,124 62,243 12 Mar-18 5,13,.043.0 5,13,043.0 15-Apr-18 4,19,066 93,977 Total 57,83,808 57,83,808 49,32,667 8,51,141 5.1 We are of considered view that aforesaid facts not appearing from impugned orders require verification. Accordingly, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes and so is the appeal. Issue, on merits, is restored to the file of learned AO to take into consideration the particulars of month-wise deposits of the contribution provided by the assessee and decide the issue afresh.

Order pronounced in open court on 16.10.2023.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →