Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Source Hov India Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs Dcit Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai on 15 March, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'ए'' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH : CHENNAI
ी अ ाहम पी. जॉज , लेखा सद य एवं
ु आर.एल रे %डी, या(यक सद य के सम* ।
ी ध#ु व$
[BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER]
S.P.No.67/CHNY/2019
(आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.438/CHNY/2019)
नधारण वष /Assessment year : 2012-13.
M/s. Source HOV India Pvt. Ltd, The Deputy Commissioner of
New No.59, 61 & 63, : Income Tax,
Dowlath Towers, Corporate Circle 6(2)
8th to 12th floor, Chennai.
Taylors Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai 600 010.
[PAN AABCV 3563H]
(Petitioner) (34यथ6/Respondent)
Petitioner by : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv.
Respondent by : Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT.
सन
ु वाई क& तार(ख/Date of Hearing : 15-03-2019
घोषणा क& तार(ख /Date of Pronouncement : 15-03-2019
आदे श / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessee through this stay petition seeks stay of recovery of C49,98,190/- out of a total demand of Rs.1,49,85,445/-.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal of :- 2 -: SP No.67/2019.
the assessee in limine citing a reason that assessee had filed the appeal in physical form and not in electronic form. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, though assessee had filed the appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 08.04.2016 manually, when this was pointed out, assessee had filed the appeal form electronically. According to the ld. Authorised Representative, electronic filing of the appeal could be done only on 12.12.2018, and the delay was inadvertent. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, there were glitches in the Departments' computer system due to which CBDT had given extension for filing of the appeal in electronic form. Further, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee having filed its appeal in physical form on 08.04.2016, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not have dismissed such appeal in limine. According to him, delay of 911 days in filing the appeal electronically was technical in nature and ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought have condoned the delay. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the demand arose mainly on account of disallowance of delayed remittance of employees share of PF & ESI. According to him, the remittances were effected by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return. Further, as per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee was in great financial difficulty and was not in a position to pay the demand.
:- 3 -: SP No.67/2019.
3. . Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand submitted that assessee could not show any good reason for grant of a stay.
4. We have heard both the parties, perused the orders of lower authorities and the stay petition filed by the assessee. The major disallowance giving rise to the demand was belated payment of employees share of PF/ ESI. It is not disputed that the sum was paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal in limine refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal electronically. Whether belated payment of employees share of PF & ESI, could be allowed as deduction is an issue not fee from doubt. There are conflicting judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in this issue. Judgments in the case of Unifac Managements vs DCIT (WP 5264 of 2018 dated 23.10.2018) and CIT vs. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt Ltd. (TCS No.585 & 586 of 2015, dated 24.07.2015) does point out the conflict. Further it is an admitted position that in the initial stages there were glitches in the electronic filing system. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of stay. We stay the :- 4 -: SP No.67/2019.
demand for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier.
5. In the result, the stay petition of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 15th day of March, 2019, at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ध#ु व$
ु आर.एल रे %डी) (अ ाहम पी. जॉज )
(DUVVURU RL REDDY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE)
या(यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे.नई/Chennai
/दनांक/Dated: 15th March, 2019.
KV
आदे श क& 2 त3ल4प अ5े4षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ7/Appellant 3. आयकर आय8
ु त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. 4वभागीय 2 त न<ध/DR
2. 2=यथ7/Respondent 4. आयकर आय8
ु त/CIT 6. गाड फाईल/GF