2021 (10) TMI 1260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for one year would be applicable to the other year also. Ld DR did not controvert the aforesaid submissions of Ld AR. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the Counsel, I for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order but for the sake of reference refer to the facts for A.Y. 2017-18. 3. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 4. Assessee is a company who filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 10.12.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 16,43,330/-. Thereafter vide intimation u/s 143(1) dated 17.02.2020, CPC Bangalore determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 23,30,250/- inter alia by disallowing Rs. 6,86,922/- on account of delayed deposit of ESI....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at Hotels Ltd. (supra). She submitted that on identical facts the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Dee Development Engineers Ltd. order dated 08.04.2021 in ITA No.4959/Del/2016 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. She further submitted that Tribunal while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, the Hon'ble Tribunal had also considered the decision in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) as relied upon by the CIT(A). She pointed to the copy of relevant decision placed in the paper book. She therefore submitted that following the order of Tribunal in the case of Dee Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) the addition be deleted. 6. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of CIT(A) and also placed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018 wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee relying upon the judgment of AIMIL Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. It is settled law that when two judgments are available giving different views then the judgment which is in favour of the assessee shall apply as held in case of Vegetable Prod....