Case Number: ITA 2981/DEL/2022
Appellant: Parminder Kumar, s/o Sh. Krishna Gopal, 423/8, Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat, Haryana
Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Sonepat, Haryana
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Case Filed on: 2022-12-22
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-06-07
Pronounced on: 2023-06-07
PAN No.: AGKPK8247K
The present appeal was filed by the assessee, Parminder Kumar, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.10.2022. The case revolves around the disallowance of delayed deposits of EPF, ESIC, and GST for the assessment year 2017-18.
The appellant raised several grounds challenging the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the NFAC. The key grounds included:
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench ‘F’ presided by Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, and Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member, examined the grounds of appeal and the facts presented by both the appellant and the revenue.
The Tribunal noted the following:
The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 12,39,720 and claimed a refund of Rs. 6,72,080. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act with disallowances of Rs. 44,03,784 under Section 36 and Rs. 5,14,395 for non-remittance of EPF, ESIC, and service tax within the due dates. Aggrieved by the intimation, the assessee filed a rectification request, which was denied. The assessee then appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1, which held that delayed deposits of EPF and ESIC beyond the stipulated period prescribed in the respective Acts are not allowable. Following this precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the addition under Section 36.
For the addition under Section 43(B), the Tribunal noted the specific claims of the assessee that the amounts were deposited within the stipulated time and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate this issue de novo.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee contested the addition of Rs. 37,69,476 under Section 43(B) for delayed deposit of GST, which was paid in FY 2018-19 onwards and never part of the profit and loss account. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate this issue de novo, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee contested the addition of Rs. 75,20,262 under Section 43(B) for delayed deposit of GST, which was paid in FY 2019-20 onwards and never part of the profit and loss account. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate this issue de novo, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, Parminder Kumar, partly for statistical purposes. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 07/06/2023.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on: 07/06/2023
Signed by: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, and Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member
Assistant Registrar: R.N, Sr. PS
The orders were forwarded to the appellant, respondent, CIT, CIT(Appeals), and the DR: ITAT as per the usual procedure.
The cases were filed primarily due to the appellant’s contention that the disallowances made by the Income Tax Officer were based on delayed deposits of EPF, ESIC, and GST, which were either deposited within the stipulated time or never part of the profit and loss account. The Tribunal, after examining the facts and arguments, concluded that the CIT(A) should re-examine these issues, leading to the partial allowance of the appeals for statistical purposes.
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform