2021 (1) TMI 1066 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal emphasizes timely provident fund deposits, grants appellant opportunity for further assessment. Procedural victory indicated.

The Tribunal focused on the disallowance of the employee's contribution to the provident fund due to a delay in deposit. It emphasized verifying payment ... Addition under section 36(1)(va) - delay in deposit of employee’s contribution to provident fund - Assessee argued the same amount was duly paid before filing of income tax return and within the time limit specified u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT:- We find that the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs AIMIL Ltd [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has accepted the claim of the deduction for payments of employees contribution to ESI/PF and accordingly restricted the disallowance for payments made after the date of the filing of the return of income. The sole issue before us is only of verification whether all the payments of ESI/PF contribution of the employees were made before the date of the filing of the return of income or not. We feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for verification of the claim of the assessee and decide accordingly. Appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:1. Disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund.2. Disallowance upheld based on typographical mistake in tax audit report.3. Request for deletion of addition made for delay in provident fund deposit.Issue 1: Disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fundThe appellant contested the disallowance of Rs. 4,16,161 for delay in depositing employee's provident fund contribution, arguing that the amount was paid before filing the income tax return within the time limit specified under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed Rs. 5,53,851, but the CIT(A) reduced it to Rs. 4,16,161. The appellant claimed that all payments were made before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) accepted the deduction for payments made before the return filing date based on legal precedents. The Tribunal directed the issue back to the CIT(A) for verification, emphasizing that both parties should be given a chance to present their case.Issue 2: Disallowance upheld based on typographical mistakeThe appellant argued that the disallowance was unjust as it was based solely on a typographical error in the tax audit report without providing an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue explicitly but focused on the verification of the payment dates. The appellant's request for deletion of the addition was granted for statistical purposes, indicating a procedural victory rather than a substantive ruling on the typographical mistake.Issue 3: Request for deletion of addition for delay in provident fund depositThe appellant requested the deletion of the addition made for the delay in provident fund deposit. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue but allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating that the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further verification and decision. This suggests that the Tribunal acknowledged the need for a closer examination of the facts related to the delay in provident fund deposit before making a final determination.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment primarily focused on the disallowance of the employee's contribution to provident fund due to a delay in deposit. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying the payment dates and granted the appellant an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for a more thorough assessment. The decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes indicates a procedural step rather than a definitive resolution on the substantive issues raised by the appellant.