SHLAKAS, Delhi V. Asst. Director of Income Tax,CPC, Bangalore

ITA 1797/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0848 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1797/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 SHLAKAS, 2/90 Ground Floor, D-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore PAN :AAAFS8401R (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 09.04.2021 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. In grounds no. 1 and 2, the assessee has raised the issue of not allowing benefit of brought forward business loss. 3. Briefly the facts are, while processing the return of income filed by the assessee under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) Appellant by Sh. A.K. Batra, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 30.05.2022 ITA No. 1797/Del/2021 AY: 2019-20 2 | P a g e did not allow set off of brought forward loss pertaining to earlier assessment years. While deciding assessee’s appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeal) also failed to decide the issue. 4. Be that as it may, before me, it is the contention of the assessee that the loss claimed by the assessee was crystallized in assessment year 2018-19 and while deciding assessee’s appeal pertaining to assessment year 2018-19, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a specific direction to the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim and allow the benefit, as per law. 4. Having considered rival submissions, I direct the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim of set off of brought forward loss qua the facts available on record. In case, it is found that the loss claimed by the assessee was crystallized in assessment year 2018-19, the same has to be allowed to the assessee. 5. The next issue which arises for consideration is disallowance of Employees’ Contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) aggregating to Rs.251,557/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction of the aforesaid amount on the reasoning that the payments were not made within the time period stipulated under the relevant Acts. However, it is not in dispute that the Employees’ ITA No. 1797/Del/2021 AY: 2019-20 3 | P a g e Contribution to PF and ESI was paid before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the deduction claimed by the assessee has to be allowed. 6. While coming to such conclusion, reliance is placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Raj Kumar and Ors. Vs. ITD (CP), Bengaluru, in ITA No.1392/Del/2021 and Ors., dated 28.02.2022. Accordingly, ground nos. 3 and 4 are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 th May, 2022 Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30 th May, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi