ELCON (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.306/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21
M/s. Elcon (India), Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-1/6, Phase-1, Okhla Ward-29(1), Industrial Area, Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAAFE2139G (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Sh. Priyansh Jain, CA Department by Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 20.03.2023 Date of pronouncement 31.03.2023
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated
14.12.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)
pertaining to assessment year 2020-21.
The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to
disallowance/addition of Rs.3,77,812 under section 43B of the
Income-tax Act, 1961.
Briefly the facts are, while processing the return of income
filed by the assessee, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC)
ITA No.306/Del/2023 AY: 2020-21
disallowed an amount of Rs.3,77,812/- under section 43B of the
Act under a misconception that the amount was not paid before
the due date. After receiving the intimation received under section
143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed an application for rectification
under section 154 of the act. Simultaneously, challenging the
intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed an
appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). On 14.02.2022,
the CPC passed a rectification order deleting the adjustment of
Rs.3,77,812/-. However, this fact could not be brought to the
notice of the first appellate authority in course of appellate
proceeding. Therefore, while disposing of assessee’s appeal,
learned Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the
adjustment/addition made under section 43B by holding that
employees contribution to PF/ESI was not paid before the due
date.
Having considered rival submissions, I find that the first
appellate authority has completely misconceived the facts while
sustaining the adjustment. From the facts on record, it is clearly
evident that the amount in dispute does not represent employees’
contribution to PF/ESI. Rather, the amount includes employer’s
contribution to PF and ESI. Undisputedly, the amount was paid 2 | P a g e
ITA No.306/Del/2023 AY: 2020-21
before the due date of filing of return of income under section
139(1) of the Act. Having verified the aforesaid factual position,
the CPC deleted the adjustment in the rectification order passed
under section 154 of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid, I reverse the impugned order of
learned Commissioner (Appeals) qua the addition of Rs.3,77,812
and delete the addition. Grounds are allowed.
In the result, appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2023
Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st March, 2023. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3 | P a g e
