2021 (1) TMI 1066

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,16,161/- on account of delay in deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund without appreciating the fact that the same amount was duly paid before filing of income tax return and within the time limit specified u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was not justified in upholding the disallowance solely on the basis of typographical mistake in tax audit report and without providing any opportunity of being heard. 3. That entire employee's contribution to provident fund having been deposited before time limit specified u/s 139(1) and same being duly corroborated from relevant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he learned counsel submitted that matter of verification may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld. DR though relied on the order of the lower authorities, did not object for verification of date of payments in dispute by the Assessing Officer or by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. 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 (2010) 321 ITR 508 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 1,42,293/- paid on 2016-12-18 as per the page number 93 of the submissions. The total of such deposits made after due date comes to Rs. 4,16,161/- whereas the return of income was e-filed on 16.10.2013. . Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,37,690/- (Rs. 553851 - Rs. 416161). The remaining addition of Rs. 416161/- is upheld and the appellant gets a relief of Rs. 1,37,690/-." 7. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has contested that all the payments towards ESI/PF contribution of the employees were made before the due date of the filing of the return of income and, therefore, no disallowan....