Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (1) TMI 552 - AT - Income Tax


Issues involved:
The appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning disallowance of employer's contribution towards PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) and late deposits of employees' contribution towards PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va).

Employer's Contribution Disallowance:
The appeal was filed against the disallowance of Rs. 17,83,170 as employer's contribution towards PF/ESI. The Assessing Officer wrongly treated it as employees' contribution under Section 36(1)(va) initially. However, the Central Processing Centre rectified this mistake under Section 154, acknowledging the correct nature of the amount. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider this rectification order and confirmed the original disallowance. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, recognizing the mistake made by the CIT(A) and restoring the position adopted by the Assessing Officer in the rectification order.

Late Deposit of Employees' Contribution:
Another dispute of Rs. 72,093 related to the late deposit of PF/ESIC towards employees' contribution. The assessee acknowledged that Section 36(1)(va) would apply in this case, and therefore, did not press this grievance during the proceedings.

Decision:
After considering the submissions and the material on record, the tribunal found justification in the relief sought by the assessee regarding the disallowance of the employer's contribution. The denial of relief by the CIT(A) based on a misconception of facts was overturned, and the position established in the rectification order under Section 154 was upheld. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates