9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals) had erred both in law and on facts by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer and making an addition of Rs. 2,00,194/- being delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(i)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or withdraw to all or any ground on or before the hearing of the appeal." 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a delay in depositing employee's as well as employer's contribution to the Employee's Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the CPC while processing the return disallowed/added Rs. 1,10,62,263/- on the ground that employees contribution to employees provident fund (EPF) and ESI fund has been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee filed the appeal before the national Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi where the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the assessee's submission that no disallowance was warranted in respect of delayed deposit of employees contribution to EPF /ESI fund since the assessee has deposited the employees contribution in respect of both these Acts (EPF & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/Kol/2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A). The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the deletion of the addition by the AO on account of Employees 'Contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
