2025 (2) TMI 1441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Delhi vide order dated 27.09.2023 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "I. On Legality 1. Comm. of Income-tax, National Faceless (Appeal) Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred both in Law and in fact in passing order dated 27-9-2023 wholly and fully relying on order of Dy.CIT, Cir 1(1) (1), Baroda dated 30-1-2020 passes u/s. 271(1)(c) levying Penalty of Rs. 28,29,250/- which is bad in and Void. 2. Your Appellant submits that the Penalty Order referred above dated 30- 1-2020 is in valid and void in Law ab initio since the Dy. Comm. of Income-tax has failed to quote refer to "Documentation Identification Number (DIN) effective from 1-10-2019 as per binding Circular of Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,68,418/- and difference in Receipt Rs. 2,51,731/- Total of Rs. 87,20,149/-. b) Your Appellant submits that full disclosure was made by the Appellant and not accepting a claim or disallowing expenditure does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income and Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. It is therefore submitted that relief claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer be modified accordingly. Your Appellant reserves right to add, alter, amend to withdraw any or all Ground of Appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that in the assessment order, an addition of Rs. 84,68,418/- was made on account of late deposit of employee's contribution towards EPF and ESIC. The same was conf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus, said clause would not absolve assessee employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We are of the considered view that at the relevant time, when the assessee did not make suo-moto disallowance on account of late deposit of PF and ESIC i.e. financial year ending 31 March 2012, there were contrary decisions on the issue with various Courts/Tribunals taking contrary views in the matter. At the relevant time, we observe that various Tribunals had dec....