AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Agr a’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074620705(1) dated 18.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 19 61.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The assessee ple ads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1.That o n the facts and the circumstances of the c ase and in law, the Ld. A DDL/JCIT (A) has grossly erred in arbitrarily dismissing the appe al filed by the Appellant, challenging the intimatio n order passed under section 143(1) of the Act , holding it as infructuous.
2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CPC has grossly erre d in de termining and the Ld. ADDL /JCIT (A) in upholding the total income of the Appe llant for the subjec t AY at INR 41,56,04,557 as against re turned income of INR 39,43,63,337 and therefore, to the extent of addi tio ns/ disallowances made therein, the orde r of the Ld. AO is bad in law.
3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CPC has grossly erred in maki ng and the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) in upholding an adj ustm ent amounting to INR 2,12,41,220 on account of inconsiste ncy in any sum receive d from employee s as contr ibution to any provident fund o r supe rannuation fund or any fund se t up unde r ESI Act o r any o ther fund for the welfare of emplo yees to the extent not credited to the employees account on or be fore the due date ( 36(1)( va)] claimed in S chedule Ol of the re vised Return o f Inco me ("Rol") and Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Re port.
4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CPC has grossly erred in maki ng and the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) in upholding an adj ustm ent amounting to INR 2,12,41,220 on account of a bona fide delay of 3 days in deposit of employees' contributio n to Pro vide nt F und for the month of April 2021 o wing to technical objectio n raised by the bank because of human error.
5.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CPC and the Ld. A DDL/JCIT (A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the Tax Auditor had duly explained the human error in the Notes to Clause 20( b) provided in the "Attachment 1, Part 1 -Information required to be fur nished in Form No. 3CD date d Octo ber 28, 2022".
6.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Central processing Centre , Bengaluru ('CPC') and the L d. ADDL/JCIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the refund amounting to INR 53,68,340 claimed by the Appe llant in its re vised Rol and instead determining a demand payable amounting to INR 140.
7.That on the facts and circumstances of the case , the CPC has grossly erred in levying and the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) in upholding the incorrect co mputation o f inte rest under section 234C of the Act in the intimatio n o rder passed unde r Section 143( 1) o f the Act.”
Suffice to say, there is hardly any dispute between the parties that the sole substantive issue herein which arises for the tribunal’s apt adjudication is that o f the assessee’s ESI/PF claim disallowance adjustment amounting to Rs.2,12,41,220/-made by the learned lower authorities alleging belated credit thereof in the prescribed account after the “due” date in the prescribed statute than that of filing section 139(1) return. We further wish to clarify here that the “due” date for the purpose of foregoing compliance of ESI/PF payment in the assessee’s case was May 15, 2021. The Revenue at this stage quotes Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) in this backdro p that the instant issue of be lated ESI/PF already stands settled against the assessee and in the de partment’s favour; and, therefore, we ought to upho ld the impugned disallowance in very terms.
We find no merit in the Revenue foregoing vehement arguments. A perusal of the case record indicates that the assessee had first deposited the impugned ESI/PF amount on May 12, 2021 as per it’s bank records indicating the corresponding debit entry to this effect (page 211 to 215 of the paper book) which inter alia stood reversed by the bank on May 14, 2021 at 7 :35:56 PM (page 216 of the paper book). And that in this factual backdrop, the assessee could ensure the transactions finality o nly on May 18, 2021 on account of the technical glitches beyo nd it’s control. It has fur ther placed on record the EPFO’s challan that the impugned payment had been made on May 11, 2021 as well (page 218 of the paper book). This is not the Revenue’s case that it had appropriated the sums(s) in issue for any other purpose. All these clinching facts have gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. We thus find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground that it was prevente d on account of reasons beyond it’s control to ensure payme nt of ESI/PF dues in question. The impugned ESI/PF disallowance stands deleted accor dingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.