9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ward 49(1), Delhi., DCIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, ACIT, Circl e23(2), New Delhi., ITO, Ward 62(1), Delhi., ACIT, Circle 61(1), New Delhi, Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore, DCIT, CC-31, Delhi Jhandewala Ext., ITO, Ward-14(3), Delhi, Deputy Commission of Income Tax, CPC, Circle-34(1), Delhi., ITO, Ward 50(4), Delhi., ITO, Ward 12(3), Delhi For the Assessee : Shri Lalit Mohan, CA, Shri D.K. Gupta, CA, Shri Hawa Singh, CA Shri Mukul Gupta, CA, Shri Baldev Raj, CA, Shri Aman Garg, CA, Shri Rupender Shah, CA, Shri Tanpreet Kohli, CA. For the Revenue : Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER BENCH : The present appeals are filed by the above mentioned assessees feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by appellate authority f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) passed the order without going through the facts and explanations filed by the Appellant. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is without properly appreciating the fact and that he further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time." 3. Similar grounds with different amounts and assessment years have been raised in other appeals but however, the sum & substance and the issues involved in all the appeals are identical. 4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that the sole grievance of the assessee is confirming the additions on account of delay in deposit of employee's contribution towards provident fund and ESI fund. 5. Before us, Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (24) of Section 2 applies. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue is no more res-integra. The issue has already been settled in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 [Del.] order dated 10.09.2018 held 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insurance scheme on the assurance that the employee's contributions towards PF & ESI have been deposited before the due date of filing of return of income. However, the Revenue shall be at liberty to seek restoration of the appeal where it is found as a matter of fact that the assessee has failed to deposit the employee's contribution before the due date of filing of return of income stipulated u/s 139(1) of the Act in accordance with law. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi cited hereinabove, we allow the appeals filed by the captioned assessees. 11. In the result, all captioned appeals of the respective assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
