Yohan Enterprises, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Wd. 1(3)(9), Surat

ITA 124/SRT/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1679 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPMA SINGLA
• Section: 43B; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.124/SRT/2021 (AY 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Yohan Enterprise, 47-50, Bhatpore, GIDC, Nr.GAIL Colony, Op.ONGC Hazira Complex, Village Bhatpore, Surat - 394510. PAN: AAAFY 2953 Q Vs The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(3)(9), Surat. Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee by Shri VartikChoksi – CA Revenue by Ms. Anupma Singla – Sr.DR Date of hearing 04/02/2022 Date of pronouncement 04/02/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 29.07.2021 for the A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee raised following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) not justified in confirming addition of Rs.38,43,437/- for the late deposit of employee’s contribution towards provident fund and ESI. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.16,37,238/-, out of total addition of Rs.38,43,437/- made U/s.36(1)(Va) of the I.T.Act as the said payments of Rs.16,37,238/- were made on or before the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. ITA No.124/SRT/2021 (AY 2017-18) Yohan Enterprises, Surat 2 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition & passing the order under appeal without considering the written submission filed the appellant on 26-07-2021 vide reply No. ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2021-22/1034334807(1). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of late deposit of employee’s contribution towards provident fund and ESI of Rs.22,06,199/- (out of the total addition of Rs.38,43,437/-) should be deleted as per the judicial pronouncements where it has been held that no part of the employee’s contribution towards PF /ESI could be added u/s. 43B of the Act or u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act, if the payment was made beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Act but before the due date of filing of return of income. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee -firm filed its return of income for impugned assessment year (AY) on 28.06.2018 declaring income of Rs.82,42,400/-. The return was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 08.02.2019. In the intimation, the assessing officer (AO)/CPC Bangalore disallowed the deduction of contribution of Provident Fund (PF) and contribution Employee State Insurance (ESI) under section 36(1)(va) /43A of the Act. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was heard and adjudicated by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) New Delhi, wherein the addition/disallowance on account of contribution towards PF& ESI was upheld in order dated 27.09.2021. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. ITA No.124/SRT/2021 (AY 2017-18) Yohan Enterprises, Surat 3 3. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorised Representative (ld.AR) of the assessee and ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that he has a very limited prayer before the Tribunal that some of the contributions towards PF were paid within the prescribed period of relevant statutory provision or within the permitted extended period. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction to that extent. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that he has furnished the details of PF contribution paid within due dated as per the relevant Act or Circular issued under that Act for extending the period. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he has placed on record the details of such payments in the tabulated form which was filed in extended period and such contribution may be allowed to that extent. 4. In the alternative submissions, the ld AR for the assessee submits that the appeals may be restored to the file of AO to verify the details of various challan and grant appropriate relief to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that all these details furnished by the assessee can only be verified by the AO and in case this bench is of the view that certain payments on account contributions of PF were furnished during extending period. ITA No.124/SRT/2021 (AY 2017-18) Yohan Enterprises, Surat 4 6. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the orders of Lower Authorities. We find that the ld.AR of the assessee has made a very limited issue before us, by furnishing the details of certain payments which were paid within due date or as per the extended date in the relevant statutory provision. We find that the ld.AR of the assessee has furnished the following details and claimed that the said amount was paid within due date: Nature of Fund Date of Payment wrongly reported in Audit report Due Date of Payment as per act or Circular Actual Date of Payment Sum received from employees and Paid within due date as per Act or Circular Page No. PF - May 23.06.2016 15.06.2016 15.06.2016 250567 23-26 PF –Aug 16.09.2016 15.09.2016 13.09.2016 275340 27-30 PF –Nov 19.12.2016 15.12.2016 13.12.2016 246672 31-35 PF –Nov 16.12.2016 15.12.2016 13.12.2016 341514 PF –Dec 19.01.2017 20.01.2017 19.01.2017 169728 36-40 PF –Dec 18.01.2017 20.01.2017 18.01.2017 353417 1637238 7. Considering the submission of both the parties, we direct the AO to verify the fact and allow the appropriate relief to the extent wherein the contribution of ESI or PF is made either within due date or within the extended period under the relevant statutory provision and passed the order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to provide relevant ITA No.124/SRT/2021 (AY 2017-18) Yohan Enterprises, Surat 5 challan and evidence and further explain the facts before AO. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order announced on 4 th February, 2022 at the time of hearing in virtual hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 04/02/2022 /SGR* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By order / / TRUE COPY / / Sr.Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Surat