9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010-20 & 2021-22. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an appeal was filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(Appeals), against an order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated August 8, 2020, for the Assessment Year 2019-20, by the, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore (AO). The assessee had filed its Income Tax Return for the relevant assessment year on March 3, 2020, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,81,75,290/-. The return was processed on August 8, 2020, and the total income was computed at a figure of Rs. 2,18,48,042/-, by making disallowance towards late contribution towards ESI/PF, which led to the filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. The main issue in the appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals) was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus dismissed, and the addition made by the AO for the delayed payment of employee contributions towards PF/ESIC was upheld. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee has taken the following Grounds of Appeal: ITA No. 473/Ahd/2024 (A.Y. 2019-20) "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learened CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 36,72,752/- on account of debatable and contentious issue as prima-facie adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 36,72,752/- on account of delay in payment of employee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 36,72,752/- on account of delay in payment of employees' PF and ESIC contribution without considering the fact that payment is not made to the employees and hence, there is no question of deduction of the sum and in-turn payment under relevant acts." 6. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee initially argued that while considering the delay in payment of ESI/ PF, the period of 15 days has to be reckoned from the actual date of payment of salary to the employee and not the close of the month. Viewed from this perspective, there is no delay in contribution of ESI/ PF and no disallowance is called for u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the Bench confronted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid with corresponding duty to deduct employee's contribution and to deposit the same in the fund. 7. Thereafter, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in light of the above decision of Gujarat High Court referred to above, he wishes to withdraw the present appeals and does not wish to argue the matter further. 8. Therefore, in light of the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Suzlon supra and the request of the Counsel for the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed as withdrawn. 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
