M/S LEISURE EXPORT WORLDWIDE , JALANDHAR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 3/ASR/2022

AI Insights

M/s Leisure Export Worldwide appealed against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 2,82,291 to the assessee's income for late deposit of employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a deficiency in the appeal memo, specifically the absence of the actual order from the CPC, which is a mandatory requirement under section 246 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal did not address the substantive issues raised by the assessee regarding the late deposit of EPF/ESI contributions, as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114595 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Lakhani India Ltd, CIT vs Lakhani Rubber Works, CIT vs Hernia Embroidery Mills P. Ltd, Checkmate India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 246; 2; 143(1); 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Leisure Export Worldwide, S-24/25, Industrial Area, Jalandhar [PAN: AAEFL 5774A] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None (Written submission) Respondent by: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 07.08.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.11.2021 in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 3/Asr/2022 Leisure Export Worldwide v. Asstt. CIT 2 “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 2,82,291/- on account of employee’s contribution towards FPF/ES I deposited after due date but before due date of filing of Income Tax return. Addition confirmed is illegal and bad in law. 2. That addition confirmed for late deposit of EPF/ESI of Rs. 2,82,291/- is opposed to the following judgments wherein it has been held that the assessee would be eligible for deduction in respect of such payments made before the due date of filing of return. (a) CIT vs Lakhani India Ltd 232 CTR 0081 (P&H) (b) CIT vs Lakhani Rubber Works 232 CTR 0350 (P&H) (c) CIT vs Hernia Embroidery Mills P. Ltd 366 ITR 0167 (P&H) 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law in concluding that explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and explanation 5 to section 43 B of the Act inserted by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f 01.04,2021 i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 are clarificatory in nature and have retrospective application. 4. That the Appellant requests for leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off.” 3. The appellant has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs. 2,82,291/- on account of employee’s contribution towards FPF/ESI being deposited after due date of the provisions under the relevant Act but before due date of filing of Income Tax return. He has reiterated the same issues in the additional grounds of appeal and hence it is not required to admit separately for adjudication. ITA No. 3/Asr/2022 Leisure Export Worldwide v. Asstt. CIT 3 4. The appellant contended Ttat addition confirmed for late deposit of EPF/ESI of Rs. 2,82,291/- is opposed to the following judgments wherein it has been held that the assessee would be eligible for deduction in respect of such payments made before the due date of filing of return. (a) CIT vs Lakhani India Ltd 232 CTR 0081 (P&H) (b) CIT vs Lakhani Rubber Works 232 CTR 0350 (P&H) (c) CIT vs Hernia Embroidery Mills P. Ltd 366 ITR 0167 (P&H) 5. It is further submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law in concluding that explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and explanation 5 to section 43 B of the Act inserted by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f 01.04,2021 i.e. A.Y. 2021-22 are clarificatory in nature and have retrospective application. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR stands by the impugned order. He contended that the issue is settled by the honourable apex court in the case of Checkmate India. However, the appeal filed by the assessee is rejected as not maintainable in view of deficiency in appeal memo filed in Form 35. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and carefully gone through the written submissions of the appellant assesse and material on record as well. ITA No. 3/Asr/2022 Leisure Export Worldwide v. Asstt. CIT 4 Admittedly, the CIT appeal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by pointing out deficiency in the appeal memo, stating that section 246 of the Act, provides the appealable orders against which any aggrieved assesse can file an appeal before the commissioner appeals. A mere communication letter from CPC which is not an order is not an appealable order before the CIT (A) and hence, the appeal filed by the appellant suffers from inherent defect in absence of the copy of the order required to be filed appealed against is not filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT appeal has directed the assesse to first remove the defects by filing the copy of the order. In our view, the appeal of the assesse being defective appeal has rightly been rejected by the Ld. CIT appeal as not maintainable in the absence of the order passed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. 8. From the record, it is evident that this appeal was filed against the order u/s 143(1) dated 21-02-2019. But no such order was filed by the assessee with Form-35. Only a copy of letter dated 21-02-2019 from CPC was filed which is not an order. Hence, this appeal is liable to be rejected as invalid. However, the assesse may file the order against which this appeal is filed by filing fresh appeal in Form 35 before the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No. 3/Asr/2022 Leisure Export Worldwide v. Asstt. CIT 5 9. In the above view, we find no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the facts on record. Accordingly, as such, same is sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order