This case involves appellant Ashok Kumar Singh HUF from Faridabad, Haryana, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) decision relating to the disallowance of delayed Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI) payments for the assessment year 2018-19.
The appellant, represented by Sh. Alok Kumar Gupta, CA, faced disallowances by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CITA) over alleged delays in depositing employees’ contributions to PF and ESI totaling Rs. 8,07,000. The primary legal contention revolves around the recent amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act 2021 and their applicability to past assessment years.
The tribunal, presided over by Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member, considered similar past cases and precedents that supported the appellant’s position. Despite the amendments, which were argued to apply retrospectively, the tribunal found that these should apply prospectively from the assessment year 2021-22. This decision was supported by citing decisions such as Mr. Vansh Jain vs DCIT, which ruled in favor of the assessee under similar circumstances.
The tribunal’s decision in January 2022 reversed the earlier disallowance, allowing the deduction claimed by Ashok Kumar Singh HUF and setting a precedent for similar cases. This outcome highlights the judiciary’s stance on ensuring fair treatment for taxpayers facing procedural discrepancies in depositing employee contributions.
The detailed judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines while providing relief to those who rectify their procedural lapses within a reasonable period.
Ashok Kumar Singh HUF vs ITO Ward 1(1), Faridabad: Dispute Over PF and ESI Payments
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