TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal 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 ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Rules, 1962, which is inapplicable to the present case. 6. That on 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 app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art A-P& L Ind-AS of ITR-6 and paid taxes thereon. c. Another addition of Rs. 3,201/- has been made u/s 43B. After knowing the fact, the 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) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k down to prevent Covid. The counsel has also brought on record another order passed by the ITAT of Delhi Bench in the case of Cargo Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. in 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Covid when the entire country was under complete lock down so in our considered opinion the assessee has got benefit of this account. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the 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....