RAJESH SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1885/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2023AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO is directed to allow the claim if the employee contributions were deposited within the prescribed period.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of late deposits of employee contributions towards PF and ESI. The assessee claimed that some deposits were made within the stipulated time under the relevant Acts.

What were the issues?

Whether employee contributions to PF and ESI, deposited within the statutory time limit, should be allowed as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Hearing: 09.08.2023Pronounced: 11.08.2023

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) dated 26.04.2023 for the assessment year 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Ld.CIT(A), is bad, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the I.T.Act, 1961.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ldCIT(A), AO (CPC) while passing the impugned order Ld.AO and CIT(A) both have faield to appreciate that Rs.2,43,311/- was deposited with the relevant authority with in the time stipulated under PF/ESI Act.”

3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the issue involved in this appeal is related to late deposit of contribution towards PF & ESI made by the employees. He submitted that the lower authorities have disallowed even such contributions that were deposited during the limitation prescribed under relevant Acts. Hence, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) should have allowed such deposits.

4.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He fairly conceded that matter may be restored to the AO for verification of correctness of the claim of the assessee regarding such deposits that were made within time as prescribed under relevant law.

5.

I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Looking to the facts of the present case and the specific averment made at bar that certain deposits were made during the limitation period. Hence, looking to the totality of the facts, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the Assessing Authority to verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee and decide it afresh in accordance with law. If the AO finds that the employee’s contribution towards PF & ESI was deposited within period prescribed under the relevant Act, the AO would allow the claim of the assessee. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated herein above.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →