2025 (4) TMI 2152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 05.07.2022 by the Assessing Officer, ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made on account of employees contribution to provident fund in the sum of Rs 56,65,336/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee had remitted the employees contribution to Provident Fund for the months of April and May 2020 beyond the due date prescribed under the PF Act but paid within the end of the previous year. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....F dues on or before the due date prescribed under the relevant PF Statute. Eventhough on merits, the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT reported in 448 ITR 518 (SC), we find that the delay in the instant case was not attributable to the assessee and that the same was due to Covid -19 pandemic followed by nation wide lockdown imposed by the Government of India. Under similar circumstances, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Diamour Jewels P Ltd vs CPC reported in 208 ITD 189 (Mum Trib) dated 25.7.2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22 for the delay in remittance of very same months of April and May 2020 had held as under:-....