TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Om Parkash , Sr. DR ORDER Per Kul Bharat , JM This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ), Delhi dated 18.05.2021. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order passed by The Learned CIT (Appeal)-NFAC is completely bad in law and wrong in facts. The learned Assessing officer-CPC has erred both on facts and in law in disallowing the contribution of employees towards the provident fund/ESI amounting to ₹ 25,22,258/- without considering the response vide dated 19.09.2019. The delayed payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved from employees towards ESI and EPF amounting to ₹ 25,22,258/- with complete disregards to the Decision of Jurisdictional Honorable Delhi High Court In the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) and the decision of Jurisdictional Honorable ITAT in the case of Planman HR Ltd. (ITA 5053/Del/2015 - Order Dated 13.09.2017) as the payments have been made before due date specified u/s. 139 and as such are fully a towable. 4. That the appellant craves leave to itself the right to add, alter amend, vary, modify and/or withdraw ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 2. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The notice sent through speed post was returned with remark left . The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the addition. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Sr. DR vehemently submitted that law is clear in this respect and he relied upon the decision of Ld. CIT(A). He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 Taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue by observing as under:- 8. Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act and ESI Act as well as the concerned notifications which granted a grace period of 5 days (which appears to have been late withdrawn recently on 08.01.2016), we are of the opinion that the ITAT's decision i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein it has been held:- 17. We may only add that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinay Cement (supra). 9. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
