Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Prowiz Mansystems Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 817/Del/2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/05/2022
Related Assessment Year : 2018-19
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Prowiz Mansystems Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Facts- The addition in dispute in this appeal is regarding the additions amounting to total of Rs.3,97,41,559/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act. These payments by way of employees’ contribution to ESI/Provident Fund were deposited by the assessee after the specified date prescribed under the relevant laws governing ESI and Provident Fund. However, payments were deposited by the assessee well before due date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of Income Tax Act. The aforesaid additions totaling Rs.3,97,41,559/- were made by way of adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act; vide intimation dated 25.11.2019. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), which was disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 10.05.2021; wherein the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs.3,97,41,559/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion- It is well settled that any adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act.

In this regard, we respectfully mention the order of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Haryana Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 14 taxman.com 122 (Delhi). Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Courts in the cases of George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. [2006] 286 ITR 0533 (Gauhati); Tata Yadogawa Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 0053 (Jharkhand); God Granites vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. [1996] 218 ITR 0298 (Karnataka); Swamy Distributors vs. ACIT & Ors. [2003] 180 CTR 0290; 139 Taxman 0310 (Karnatka), CIT vs. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 0125 (Delhi); Smt. Shanta Chopra vs. ITO [2004] 271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court).

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031