BPS Infrastructure Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Raipur bench has dismissed an appeal filed by BPS Infrastructure, an assessee firm, citing an inordinate delay of 690 days in filing the appeal and a lack of sufficient cause for the delay. The appeal challenged an adjustment made by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) / Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the disallowance of Rs. 19,84,415 for delayed payment of employee contributions to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI).
The case originated from the assessment year 2019-20. BPS Infrastructure had e-filed its income tax return on September 30, 2019, declaring an income of Rs. 14,66,150. However, the CPC/AO, through an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated March 6, 2020, disallowed the firm’s claim for deduction of the delayed ESI/PF deposits under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This adjustment increased the firm’s determined income to Rs. 34,50,570.
Aggrieved by this adjustment, BPS Infrastructure appealed to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the disallowance, concurring with the CPC’s adjustment. Consequently, BPS Infrastructure filed an appeal before the ITAT Raipur bench.
During the hearing, the authorized representative for BPS Infrastructure, Shri Ravi Agrawal, acknowledged a significant delay of 690 days in filing the appeal. He attributed this delay to the firm’s accountant, Shri Amitabh Paul, who allegedly failed to inform the partners about the CIT(Appeals)’s order dated September 29, 2021. Shri Agrawal stated that one of the partners, Shri Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sahu, only became aware of the order on October 8, 2023, after receiving it from the accountant. It was further submitted that the order was sent to an email account managed by the accountant, to which the partners had no access. An affidavit from Shri Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Sahu was presented to support these claims, asserting that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and not a lackadaisical approach.
