TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.09.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the addition of ₹ 1872684/- towards delayed employee's contribution to provident fund is not justified since the same has been paid before filing of the return. 2. That the appellant reserves the right to raise additional grounds 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the CPC while processing the return disallowed/added ₹ 1,10,62,263/- on the ground that employees contribution to employees provident fund (EPF) and ESI fund has been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee filed the appeal before the national Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi where the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the assessee's submission that no disallowance was warranted in respect of delayed deposit of employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstance of the Revenue and is directed against an order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 1091/Kol/2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A). The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the deletion of the addition by the AO on account of Employees 'Contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol. 390 ITR 306, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
