DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI V. JCB INDIA LIMITED, NEW DLEHI

ITA 3430/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against JCB India Limited concerning an addition made to the assessee's income due to a one-day delay in depositing contributions towards Employees' State Insurance (ESI) and Employees' Provident Fund (EPF). The original delay was attributed to the due date falling on a Sunday, which the assessee argued should be considered the next working day for the purpose of legal deadlines, citing Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1977, and Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing a similar case involving Pepsico India, where a delay on a national holiday was deemed acceptable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30487 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v. Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 25, Checkmate Services P Ltd. [civil Appeal no. 2833 of 2016]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, General Clauses Act, 1977, Limitation Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(1); 10

Judgement Text

"1 ITA no. 3430/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3430/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-24 DCIT, New Delhi. Vs JCB India Limited, B-1, I-1, 2nd Floor, Mathura Road Jaitpur, Badarpur, Delhi-110044. PAN: AAACE 0078 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Vishal Kalra Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, AR Department represented by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.02.2025 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai, arising out of the order dated 29.03.2024 issued by the ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the assessment year 2023-24. 2 ITA no. 3430/Del/2024 2. The assessee before us filed its return of income on 20.11.2023 declaring income at Rs. 21,71,30,61,300/- under the normal provisions of the Act which was processed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act and the intimation dated 05.12.2023 was issued upon making proposed addition of Rs. 3,25,50,080/- against which the assessee filed its response whereupon the return of income filed by the assessee was further processed by the DDIT, Central Processing Centre (the AO) u/s 143(1) of the Act and final intimation order dated 29.03.2024 upon making addition of Rs. 3,25,15,080/- was made on account of one day’s delay in deposit of contribution towards employees State Insurance (ESI) and employees provident fund (EPF), which has been deleted by the first appellate authority. Hence the instant appeal before us by the Revenue. 3. The case of the assessee before us is that the deposit of contribution towards ESI & EPF was found to be delayed by one day but the due date of deposit of such contribution sums was Sunday and the same is covered by section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1977 read with section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as per which if any due date falls on a day when any court or income-tax office is closed then such due date shall be the next working day when the court or the income-tax office reopens. Thus, the finding of delay of one day in depositing the contribution of ESI & EPF is not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore the addition was rightly deleted by the learned CIT(Appeals). 3 ITA no. 3430/Del/2024 4. On the contrary the learned DR relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. In this regard the learned AR relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT v. Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 25, a copy whereof has already been filed before us, on perusal of which it appears that the deposit of employees’ contribution towards provident fund was due on 15.08.2018 but the same was made on 16.08.2018 i.e. the next working day, on 15.08.2018 being a national holiday, deduction claimed u/s 36(i)(va), allowed by ITAT, has been upheld. 6. The learned DR, relevant to mention, has failed to come forward with any judgment in support of the addition made by the learned AO on account of delayed deposit made by the assessee neither any judgment has been relied upon contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of PCIT v. Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. (supra) as relied upon by the learned AR. Rather he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P Ltd. [civil Appeal no. 2833 of 2016]. We find that the said judgment is not applicable to the instant case because of the particular reason that counting delay in depositing the PF & ESI contribution by the assessee was neither one day nor was the Sunday or any holiday due to which the deposit was delayed. 4 ITA no. 3430/Del/2024 The factual aspects f the matter are entirely different than that of the matter placed before us by the assessee. Thus, the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) is found to be just and proper so as to not warrant any interference. The same is hereby upheld. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 19.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "