Late Appeal Allowed Despite Procedural Errors

The appeal was accepted for adjudication on merits despite being filed 87 days late due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The disallowance of EPF deposits beyond the due date was upheld, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The appellant challenged the decision, citing procedural errors and lack of opportunity to be heard. The matter was remitted back for verification of payments made by the appellant, with the appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against delay in filing, disallowance of EPF deposit, jurisdictional High Court judgment applicability, addition confirmed by CIT(A), grounds of appeal, grace period withdrawal, remittance verification, appeal allowed.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appeal was filed 87 days late due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the time limit for filing appeals from 15.3.2020. Thus, the delay was deemed justified, and the appeal was accepted for adjudication on merits.

Disallowance of EPF Deposit:
The assessee, a Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., filed returns for A.Y. 2016-17, making a revised return declaring total income. The assessment disallowed Rs. 53,23,752 for EPF deposits beyond the due date, not allowable under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment.

Applicability of High Court Judgment:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on the High Court judgment in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The appellant challenged this decision, citing errors in the AO's procedure and lack of opportunity to be heard before the addition was made.

Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant raised multiple grounds, including errors in the CIT(A)'s order, lack of show cause notice, incorrect confirmation of the addition, and failure to consider the amount already disallowed by the assessee in the return.

Withdrawal of Grace Period:
The Ministry of Labour & Employment withdrew the grace period of 5 days for EPF dues deposit from February 2016, citing technological advancements reducing processing time. The appellant presented a list of payments made within the grace period, urging verification by the Assessing Officer.

Remittance Verification and Appeal Decision:
The Counsel requested the matter to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Revenue had no objection but emphasized the need for cooperation. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessment order and CIT(A)'s decision, remitting the matter to verify the payments made by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

This comprehensive analysis covers the delay in filing the appeal, EPF deposit disallowance, High Court judgment application, grounds of appeal, grace period withdrawal, remittance verification, and the final decision allowing the appeal.

---