9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2022 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : -None- Revenue by : Shri Kanav Bali , Sr. D. R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI , AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :- 3. Assessee is a company and filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 dated 06.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs.59,97,310/-. In the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bangalore dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite the fact that the notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. Since the issue raised in appeal is a covered issue, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee, after considering the submissions of Learned DR and the material on record. 5. The intimation issued u/s 143(1) reveals that addition of Rs.2,25,292/- has been made in the intimation issued by CPC, Bangalore u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the contribution received towards PF/ESIC by the assessee from its employees was not deposited before the due date. Before CIT(A), it was inter alia submitted that though there has been delay in deposit of PF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITA no. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018 has already taken a view in favour of the assessee by holding as under: In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus AIMIL Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
