Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M/S Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Pro Interactive Service (India) ... on 9 April, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "F": NEW DELHI
BEFORE
SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 5027/Del/2016
(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14)
DCIT Vs Pro Interactive Service
Circle 20(1), (India) (P) Ltd.,
New Delhi. 31-32, Begampur Park,
Shivalik Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 017
PAN AACCP1095P
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Department By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.
DR
Appellant by Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate
Date of Hearing 10.01.2018
Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2018
ORDER
PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 22.7.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -7 {CIT (A)}, New Delhi for assessment year 2013-14 wherein vide the impugned order the Ld. CIT (A) has directed deletion of I TA N o. 5 027/D el/ 2 01 6 disallowance of Rs. 1,79,88,598/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the ground of committing default with respect of late deposit of Provident Fund dues and ESI dues.
2. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) submitted that in the instant case the assessee has failed to deposit the sums collected through employees' contributions of EPF and ESI in their accounts with the PF and ESI authorities by the due date as prescribed under the EPF and ESI Act and, therefore, the A.O. had rightly made the disallowance.
3. In response the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that although the deposits had been made after the due date, the same were paid in the Government account before the due date of furnishing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He placed reliance on the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) in this regard.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that the Ld. CIT (A) has allowed the claim of the assessee and directed that the disallowance be deleted after recording a finding of fact that the assessee had paid the employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC before the due date of furnishing of return u/s Page | 2 I TA N o. 5 027/D el/ 2 01 6 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 (Del) has held that the assessee can get the benefit of deduction if the payment is made before the due date of filing of return. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding thus has followed the ratio of the judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. reported in 213 ITR 268 (Supreme Court). The Ld. CIT (A) has also followed these two judgments while giving relief to the assessee. Therefore, in view of the fact of the case and the settled judicial precedent we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) in this regard and we dismiss the grounds raised by the Department.
5. In the final result appeal of the department stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09/04/2018.
Sd/- sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 09/04/2018
Veena
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
Page | 3
I TA N o. 5 027/D el/ 2 01 6
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR
Assistant Registrar
Page | 4