TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), in Appeal No. NFAC/2020-21/10170586 has erred in passing order dtd. 21.06.2024 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in upholding the intimation order passed by Ld. AO(CPC) by making the addition of Rs. 18,73,058/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act as the Ld. AO lacked powers to carry out such adjustment while passing order u/s 143(1). 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in upholding the addition of 218,73,058/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 7. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same." 3. Brief facts of the case, as filed in the written submission of the counsel of the assessee are as under: "Facts of the Case: 1. The appellant is a Company. 2. The return for the year under reference was filed on 15.03.2022 by the appellant declaring income for the year at Rs. 9,92,93,920/-. 3. This was processed u/s 143(1), wherein the additions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant company already paid this amount. 4. Being aggrieved against the above, this appeal is being preferred." 4. Assessee's appeal on ground no. 1, is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 18,73,058/- made u/s 36(1)(va) as already discussed above this addition was made by the CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) on the basis that contribution of ESI and PF in the government account was made beyond the prescribed time limit. 4.1 It was done by the CPC on the basis of the audit report filed by the assessee along with the return of income on this issue the ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order has given findings as under: "5.13 From AY 2021-22 onwards the appellant is provided with an opportunity to correct the mistake in audi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITA No. 5418/Del/2024 dated 14.01.2025 in which it has been categorically held as under: "In the present case before us, in the given peculiar fact pattern and circumstance when the EPF Organisation itself has waived off the levy of penal damages for delayed payment during the period of lockdown by issuing the aforesaid circular, there is DO question of treating the delay which occurred during the period of lockdown detrimental to the assessee under the Act, more specifically under the explanation to section 36[1](vo) of the Act. The delay in deposit of PF and ESI of the employees' share is for the month of April 2020 and May 2020. These months fell in the period of lockdown when pandemic of COVID-19 was at its peak. Due dates to depo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has deposited both PF and ESI in the government account immediately after the resumption of work by the banks after lockdown therefore in our opinion the assessee is not to be penalised and addition thus made u/s 36(1)(va) made by the CPC while pressing the return of income u/s 143(1) and the confirmation of the same addition by the ld. CIT(A) is accordingly deleted. 7. Ground No.2 is against the addition of Rs. 7,39,787/- u/s 41 by comparing the figures of the relevant column of ITR with that reported by the Tax Auditor. The ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has given findings on this issue as under: "During the year in question, the Tax auditor, in Clause 25, has disclosed the fact about remission or cessati....