9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andelwal, CA, Shri V.P. Bansal, CA For the Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) For the sake of convenience and brevity these three appeals by different assessees are disposed off through this consolidated order. Grounds taken in these appeals of the three different Assessees are as under: ITA No.-999/Del/2021 I. Action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of A.O. in making an addition of ₹ 82,346/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act 1961 for delayed deposit of employees contribution of EPF and ESI but before the due date of filing of return is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.-1000/Del/2021 I. Action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of A.O. in making an addition of ₹ 9,49,894/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act 1961 for delayed deposit of employees contribution of EPF and ESI but paid before the due date of filing of return is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.-1011/Del/2021 1. That the Impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s 250 of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es after due date of payment prescribed under the respective acts. However, these payments were made before due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( I.T. Act , for short). The respective Assessing Officers have made the disallowances under Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B of I.T. Act. The quantum of disallowance is ₹ 9,49,894/- in the case of M/s Global Groupware Solutions Limited; ₹ 82,346/- in the case of Pachouli Wellness Clinic LLP and ₹ 3,10,435/- in the case of Mr. Naveen Kumar. Vide the respective impugned appellate orders dated 13.07.2021, 27.07.2021 and 23.07.2021 of the respective learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the aforesaid disallowances were confirmed. The present appeals before us have been filed by the assessees in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT , for short) against these impugned appellate orders of the respective Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted on behalf of the assessees (Appellants) that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee(s) by order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Planman HR (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 5152/Del/2017. It was further brou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 822/Del/2020 in the case of Amandeep Singh Khurana. (C) The learned Sr. Departmental Representative ( Ld. Sr. DR , for short) for Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officers, and the respective impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A). (D) We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR as well as the Ld. Authorized Representative ( Ld. AR , for short) of the assessees. We have also perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the payments on account of PF/ ESI were made by the assessees after due date prescribed under the respective acts, but before due date of filing of return under the I.T. Act. The Ld. Sr. DR has also not contradicted the contentions made from the assessee s side that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders in the cases of ITO vs Aimil Ltd. (supra), CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. (supra), Sagun Foundry (P.). vs. CIT(supra), CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra), Raodways Private Limited (supra), Azamgarh Steel Power Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Salzgitter Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), M/s Crescent Roadways Pvt Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (supra), M/s Mahadev Cold Storage (supra), M/s Essa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40/- to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the IT Act. 12.1 In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- 5.3. I have carefully considered the order passed by the AO and the written submissions filed by the Ld. AR. He has relied on a number of judgements wherein the Hon'ble Courts, Tribunals have ruled that delayed payments of employee s contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC is allowable if it is deposited before the return is filed u/s 139(1). He has also stated that the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi for the A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA Nos.5028/Del/2016 vide order dated 3301.2017 has dismissed the appeal of Revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals) allowing relief to the appellant on similar facts. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 has held that the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 ITR 268. I find that the appellant has paid the Employee s contribution to provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (x) of the IT Act. We find, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in assessee s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on this very issue by observing as under:- 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order dated 23rd January 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 5028/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2013-14. 2. The question urged is as under: Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. ITAT was correct in a case in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,91,59,691/- made by the AO on account of late deposit of PF, ESI and professional tax ignoring the provisions of Section 36(l)(va) and Section 7(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. Factually, it has been found by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] as well as by the ITAT, concurrently, that the payment by the Assessee employer towards the employees contribution of the Provident Fund was made before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
