Case Law Details
Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Introduction: The case of Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan versus the Income Tax Officer (ITO), adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai, revolves around a dispute concerning the remittance of employees’ contributions towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI). The ITAT’s directive for re-adjudication highlights the complexities surrounding the due dates of remittance and their correlation with government holidays, warranting a fresh examination of the matter.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, Gurusamy Aadhinarayanan, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated May 25, 2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The appeal was delayed by 12 days, prompting the petitioner to seek condonation of delay, which was granted by the ITAT.
The dispute arose from the assessment conducted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the assessing officer disallowed the employees’ contributions towards PF and ESI, citing non-deposit of the same before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, leading to the petitioner’s appeal before the ITAT.
During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that remittances were made on the next immediate working day following government holidays in May and July, thereby contesting the notion of delay in payment. Conversely, the department contended that electronic payments are not contingent upon office closures and must adhere to due dates, regardless of holidays.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
