AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER RENU JAUHRI :
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.09.2024, passed by Addl/JCIT(A)-1 [for short, Ld. CIT(A)], Siliguri u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”), in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10076309 for A.Y. 2019-20.
At the threshold, it is noted that the appeal is time-barred by 301 days. An affidavit along with application of condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. It has been explained therein that both the directors being senior citizens were facing serious medical issues and therefore, could not take necessary action for filing of the appeal in time. The delay in filing of appeal is purely unintentional and due to bonafide reasons. After hearing both the parties, we, hereby, condone the delay in filing of appeal as the same is due to reasonable cause.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] has erred in confirming the disallowance made in the intimation order dated 29/06/2020 passed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), which is bad in law, contrary to facts, and liable to be quashed.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of 29,80,808/- on account of alleged belated deposit of employees' contribution towards PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, without appreciating that the same had been deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective PF/ESI laws.
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the due date for deposit of employees' contribution towards PF/ESI is to be reckoned with reference to the month to which the salary pertains, whereas in law the due date is to be reckoned from the date of actual disbursement of salary/wages.
4.Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Put. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) is misplaced, as the facts of the present case are distinguishable and the contributions in question had been duly deposited before the due date prescribed under the respective PF/ESI laws.
5.That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”
Although five grounds have been raised, the sole issue pertains to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of Rs. 9,80,808/- being employees contribution towards EPF as the same was held to be paid beyond the prescribed due date.
Brief facts in this regard are that this amount was added u/s 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru vide intimation dated 29.06.2020. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 10.09.2024, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on this ground by following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd vs CIT-1 [2022] 6 SCC 451 dated 12.10.2022.
Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the payments were made by the assessee well within the prescribed due dates. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the jurisdictional AO for verification of the assessee’s claim regarding payments made by the prescribed due dates and decide the matter afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.