FIL INDIA BUSINESS & RESEARCH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 412/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 August 2023AY 2020-214 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held responsible for the delay caused by technical glitches on the EPFO portal, especially when the payment was initiated well before the due date and funds were available. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee delayed the deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund by a few days due to technical glitches on the EPFO portal. The payment was debited from the assessee's bank account on October 10, 2019, but reversed on October 15, 2019, and finally transmitted on October 16, 2019.

What were the issues?

Whether a delay in depositing employee PF contribution due to technical glitches on the EPFO portal warrants a disallowance under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

Hearing: 27.07.2023Pronounced: 10.08.2023

Date of Hearing : 27.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of Ld. NFAC, New Delhi dated 23.12.2022 for AY 2020-21. 2. The grounds have been raised by the assessee are as follows:-

1. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)'1 under section 250 of the Income tax Act ('the act) dated 23 December 2022 issued by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC') is bad in law and void ab initio.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in passing an order basis incorrect set of facts, without application of mind and in a mechanical manner.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the delay in deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund (PF')

IN 21 439 579 is not attributable to the Appellant and the same was attributable to technical glitches on the EPFO portal.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid addition of IN 22,329,575 could not have been made by the Central Processing Centre under Section 143(1) of the Act as the same constitutes a debatable issue and does not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustment as per Section 143(1) of the Act.

3.

The ld. counsel of assessee submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)'1 under section 250 of the Income tax Act ('the act) dated 23 December 2022 issued by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC') is bad in law and void ab initio as the same has been passed on the basis of incorrect set of fax without application of mind and in a mechanical manner. The ld. counsel further submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the delay in deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund (PF') amounting to IN 21 439 579 is not attributable to the Appellant and the same was attributable to technical glitches on the EPFO portal. It has also been contended on behalf of the assessee that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid addition of IN 22,329,575 could not have been made by the Central Processing Centre under Section 143(1) of the Act as the same constitutes a debatable issue and does not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustment as per Section 143(1) of the Act.

4. The ld. counsel submitted that for the month of September 2019 the due date payment was 15.10.2019 and the assessee made payments by generating challan on 09.10.2019 and amount was debited to the bank account of assessee on 10.10.2019 which was reversed on 15.10.2019 crediting the bank account of assessee. He further submitted that in the second round finally the payment was transmitted to the account of concerned authority on 16.10.2019. The ld. counsel submitted that it is clearly evident that the appellant had duly deposited the above payment before the due date as per the PF Act i.e., the appellant had duly generated the challan on 9 October 2019 and made the payment pertaining to the month of September 2019 to the EPFO SBI account on October 10, 2019 i.e. 5 days before the due date of October 15, 2019. However, the payment got reversed on 15 October 2019 to the bank account of the appellant due to technical glitches on the EPFO portal/EPFO’s SBI Account. Therefore no disallowance can be made when the amount due was available in the bank account of assessee on 09.10.2019 and it was transmitted to the concerned account on 10.10.2019 then if the payment is reversing and again transmitted the concern account on 16.10.2019 then the assessee cannot be held as defaulter of payment attracting the action of the Assessing Officer to make disallowance therefore the Assessing Officer may kindly directed to delete the disallowance.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →