TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of assessee is allowed. Disallowance u/s 36(i)(va) - contribution received towards PF/ESIC by the assessee from its employees was not deposited before the due date - HELD THAT:- Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid order cited hereinabove has been overruled/stayed/set aside by higher judicial forum - we are of the view that the AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income. Admittedly in the matter, the Revenue had not contended that the assessee has deposited the contribution after the filing of the return of income. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble High Court cited hereinabove, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee and direct the AO to delete the addition. Addition made in the intimation issue u/s 143(1) - contention of the assessee that though the assessee had earned dividend income and also reflected in the computation of income under Schedule BP but however erroneously in Schedule EIHELD THAT:- Considering the submissions of AR, we are of the view that the contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi-18/10003/2019-20 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the intimation under section 143(1) passed by the assessing officer/CPC and the adjustment/addition made therein are bad-in-law and without jurisdiction and National Faceless Appeal Centre/(CIT(A)) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/(CIT(A)) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.96,41,926/- made by the assessing officer/CPC on account of disallowance of u/s 43B of the act without appreciating the fact that when the statutory dues had been paid before the due date of filing of return of income, no disallowance could have been made. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre/(CIT(A)) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.96,41,926/- even though the evidences of payment of statutory dues were furnished before him. The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter/modify t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to disallowance u/s 43B of the Act. The amount was disallowed u/s 43B of the Act for the reason that in the tax audit report, the amount was reflected in Clause 26(i)(B)(b) which was with respect to liability u/s 43B not paid on or before the due date. Before us, assessee has placed on record the date of the payments of the various amounts and has demonstrated that all the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return of income. The contention of the assessee of the amount being paid before the due date of filing of return has not been controverted by Revenue. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee has also given Certificate that all the amounts have been paid before the due date of filing of return of income and due to inadvertent error, the amount was reflected under Clause 26(i)(B)(b) instead of Clause 26(i)(B)(a) of the Tax Audit Report. We are of the view that no disallowance is called for. We, accordingly, direct the AO to delete the addition made by assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed. 10. In the resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he does not wish to press the Ground Nos.1 and 6. He further submitted that Ground Nos.2 and 3 are interconnected and are with respect to disallowance u/s 36(i)(va) of the Act. 14. Before us, Learned AR submitted that additions of Rs.14,92,677/- has been made in the intimation issued by CPC, Bangalore u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the contribution received towards PF/ESIC by the assessee from its employees was not deposited before the due date. He submitted that though there has been delay in deposit of PF/ESIC Contributions but all the contributions received by the assessee from its employees have been deposited with the appropriate authorities before the filing of return of income by the assessee. He further pointed to Page 5 of the order of CIT(A) and from where, he pointed out that the PF/ESI dues has been deposited before the filing of return of income. He, therefore, submitted that since the amounts have been deposited before the filing of return of income, no disallowance is called for and for aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of Azamgarh Steel Power vs. CPC in ITA No.1626/Del/2020 dated 31.05.2021 and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side by higher judicial forum. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income. Admittedly in the matter, the Revenue had not contended that the assessee has deposited the contribution after the filing of the return of income. In view of the above, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble High Court cited hereinabove, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee and direct the AO to delete the addition. 19. Ground No.4 is with respect to addition of Rs.61,818/-. 20. Before us, Learned AR submitted that during the year assessee had earned dividend of Rs.1,59,640/- which was claimed u/s 10(34) of the Act but however in the Schedule EI, the amount was wrongly mentioned at Rs.97,822/-. He submitted that the addition has been made on the ground that the exempt income credited in Profit and Loss account was higher by Rs.61,818/- than the income that was shown in the Schedule EI of the Income Tax Return. 21. He submitted that the assessee has actually earned dividend of Rs.1,59,640/- which is reflected in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
