SIRIUS GLOBAL LIMITED,NEHRU PLACE V. ITO WARD 23(3) , DELHI

ITA 3349/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sirius Global Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld disallowances made by the Assessing Officer for delayed deposits of employees' contributions to PF/ESI. The disallowances were initially based on an audit report that incorrectly stated the dates of payment. The Tribunal found that part of the contributions were indeed made on or before the due dates as prescribed by the EPF/ESI Acts, and remanded the matter back to the AO for verification of these payments. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance for the contributions made after the due dates but before the due date for filing the return under section 139, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs CIT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34205 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services P.Ltd. vs CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRUTI ARORA
• Section: 250; 154; 139(1); 139; 43B

Judgement Text

"ITA No.3349/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3349/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sirius Global Limited, 508, Ashok Bhawan, 93, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AAICS1777K vs ITO, Ward-23(3), Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms. Shruti Arora, CA Respondent by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 03.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 17.05.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064977876(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the order dated 19.06.2023 passed u/s 154 of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has challenged the appellate order on the following grounds:- 1. “That the addition of Rs.30,67,461/- on accounts of disallowance for delay in deposit of employee’s contribution u/s 36(1)(va), whereas such contribution is deposited on or before the due date specified as per EPFO/ESI Act, as clearly mentioned in form 3CD, which is unjustified and illegal in the eyes of law. 2. That the addition of Rs.4,54,419/- on accounts of disallowance for delay in deposit of employee’s contribution u/s 36(1)(va), whereas ITA No.3349/Del/2024 Page | 2 such contribution is deposited on or before u/s 139 of the IT Act, and it can be considered for allowable expenses under section 43B of Income Tax Act.” 3. Both grounds relate to the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act towards the delay in deposit of employees contribution of PF/ESI. Thus, the same are taken together for the sake of convenience. 4. Before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the AO has made disallowance on the basis of the Audit Report wherein the Auditor has wrongly stated that the assessee made delayed deposit of employees contribution of PF/ESI to the extent of INR 35,21,480/-. In this regard, it was submitted by Ld.AR for the assessee that inadvertently the Auditor has wrongly mentioned the dates whereas actually a sum of INR 30,67,461/- was paid on or before due date as prescribed under the respective EPF/ESI Act and the remaining amount of INR 4,54,419/- was deposited on or before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139 of the Act. He thus prayed for the deletion of addition. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee has not submitted the respective details alongwith the copy of receipts to support the claim that the amounts were deposited on or before the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act. With regard to the amounts deposited on or before the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P.Ltd. vs CIT in Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case from the perusal of the table reproduced in page 3 to 5 of the appellate order, we find that certain payments were stated to have been made on or before the due date as prescribed under the relevant Acts. However, the same were not verified by the lower authorities. Thus, for the purpose of verification of the same, the issue of claim of the assessee of that amount of INR 30,67,461/- is deposited on or before the due date is sent back to the file of AO for making verification from the challans about the actual date of payments and if the contention of the assessee is found correct that these ITA No.3349/Del/2024 Page | 3 amounts were paid on or before the due date under the respective EPF & ESI Act, no disallowance to be made in respect to such payments. With regard to the remaining amount which was paid after due date under the respective Act and that before the due date u/s 139 of the Act and in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P.Ltd. vs CIT (supra), the disallowance made is hereby confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "