JUDGMENT

V KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter), challenging the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT" hereinafter) in ITA No.2293/DEL/2022 filed by the Revenue (respondent herein) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

2. The appellant is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of manufacturing, supply and export of leather products like leather shoes, leather garments under the name of Woodland.

3. On 30.11.2019 the appellant filed its return of income of ₹15,78,68,550/- electronically for assessment year 2019-20 under Section 139(1) of Act and same was selected for scrutiny by notice dated 17/12/2019 issued u/s 143(1)(a) of Act wherein adjustments to the tune of ₹4,14,22,293/- were proposed to be deducted from the income of the appellant by the APO, Centralized Processing Centre, Income Tax Department [The Assessment Officer (AO)] on account of payment of Provident Fund, Employer's State Insurance and Labour Welfare Fund to the extent of the disputed amount deposited beyond the due date of the relevant fund under the Act.

4. The appellant filed its reply on 16.01.2020 against the notice by giving reasons against the proposed adjustments/deductions. The appellant clarified that the said employees contribution deposited before filing of the ITR should have been admissible, even though the same was deposited after the due date as prescribed under the relevant acts. However, when the return was processed finally, an intimation notice/order dated 28.05.2020 was received under Section 143(1) of the Act, wherein the income of the appellant was enhanced by an amount of ₹4,14,22,293/-, thereby disallowing the deduction of the disputed amount under Section 36(1) (va) of the Act. The AO, arrived at the said conclusion on the basis that the said deposit was made after the due date as prescribed under the relevant law, though as per the appellant, the deposit was made prior to the due date of furnishing of the ITR under Section 139(1) of the Act.

5. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal dated 14.07.2020 under Section 246A of the Act bearing Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-17110041/2020-21 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi ("CIT(Appeals), hereinafter") contesting the deduction/adjustment of the disputed amount by the AO. Thereafter, several hearing notices dated 28.10.2021, 02.05.2022, 08.06.2022 were issued by the CIT(Appeals) under Section 250 of the Act. Against the said notice(s), the appellant filed its written submissions dated 31.07.2021, 11.11.2021, 05.05.2022 and 14.06.2022.

6. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it is an undisputed factual position that, in respect of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI) contributions received by the appellant from its employees, there was a delay in making payment of these amounts to the funds in question, as compared to the due dates set out in the EPF/ESI Acts. However, it is also the undisputed position that the appellant made the said payments before the due date for the submission of the appellant’s Income-tax Return.

7. In the assessment order made by the AO in the appellant’s case under Section 143(1) of the Act, the AO made adjustments/additions in respect of these payments.

8. The Section 143(1) permits the AO to make adjustments/additions only in respect of arithmetical mistakes and clerical errors. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd – 2008 (4) SCC 208 – para 11, in which the Supreme Court stated as under:-

―What was permissible was correction of errors apparent on the basis of the documents accompanying the return. The Assessing Officer had no authority to make adjustments or adjudicate upon any debatable issues. In other words, th