TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,47,682/- and employees contribution to ESI of Rs. 2,86,938/- without considering the fact that both employees contribution to PF & ESI was duly deposited on or before due date of filling return u/s 139(1). 2. That CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,34,620/- under the head income from business done by Ld. DCIT,CPC, Bangalore without issuing any show cause notice for such addition hence there is denial of Natural Justice thus addition made in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) without following the principle of Natural Justice deserves to be deleted in full. 3. That CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,34,620/- under the head income from business in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) due to delay in deposit of em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility towards interest charged u/s 234A, u/s 234B and u/s 234C and prays for appropriate relief. 8. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. The appellant may be allowed to add/amend/withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or at any time before hearing with due permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal." 2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against the addition of Rs. 17,34,620/- on account of employee's contribution to PF of Rs. 14,47,682/- and employees contribution to ESI of Rs. 2,86,938/- on account of delay in deposit as per concerned statutes. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Centralized Processing Centre ("CPC") while processing the return of the assessee, disallowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.983/2018 pronounced on 10.09.2018 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 7. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR supported the decision of the authorities below and relied on the case laws submitted before Ld.CIT(A). 8. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and going through the orders of the authorities below. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. (supra) vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA No.983/2018 held as under:- "In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the case of Dee Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal after considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (supra) decided the issue of the assessee by observing as under: "7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards Ground No. 1, the assessee company has not deposited the employees' contribution within the due date which is prescribed under the said statute i.e. Provident Fund and ESIC. This issue is dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 wherein the issue is decided in favour of the Revenue, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ....