Timely deposits of employees' contributions for tax deductions under Section 36(1)(va) must be strictly adhered to, with no exceptions for late filings arising from technical issues.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT, Appeal Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Delhi dt. 11/09/2024 for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

2. The assessee has raised sole ground that order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much she was not justified to uphold the action of Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru in disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,54,70,677/- u/s 36(1)(va) towards employees contribution to provided fund which was delayed by one day due to technical glitch or technical error.

3. It was the case of the assessee that on the due date, i.e., 15th June, 2021, the portal of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) was not operational and even prior to that, the assessee had made several efforts to coordinate with the Regional PF Office at Bathinda for resolution. It was submitted that the concerned office could not assist effectively, compelling the assessee to approach the EPFO Regional Office, Bathinda, through communication dated 15th June, 2021, highlighting the portal-related difficulties and seeking an extension of the due date for deposit of the employees’ contribution.

4. The Ld. AR, submitted that the delay was not intentional or due to any negligence or omission on the part of the assessee, but purely due to technical glitches which rendered the portal non-functional on the due date. He further relied on a decision of the Chandigarh Tribunal in The Patiala Distt. Co. Op. Milk ( ITA no 166/Chd/2023 ), where, under similar factual circumstances, relief was granted. The AR contended that the ratio of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. was not applicable in such cases of bona fide technical impossibility.

5. However, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submission, found that the assessee had failed to furnish any conclusive evidence to substantiate the claim of technical glitch. No screenshot of 15/06/2012, system-generated error report, or contemporaneous communication from the EPFO acknowledging the issue of non function of the website on 15th June, 2021, was placed on record. Furthermore, the assessee did not submit any documents, correspondence, or complaints raised before or on the due date, showing an actual inability to access or transact on the EPFO portal.

6. Per contra, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to page 3 of the impugned order wherein it was recorded as under:

"During the year under consideration, there was a delay of 1 day for depositing the Provident Fund amounting to ₹2,54,70,677/- for the month of May, 2021. The due date for deposit of the same was 15th June, 2021 but the appellant deposited the same on 16th June, 2021. The appellant was not at fault for this delay. In fact, the website/portal of PF department (www.unifedportalmem.epfndia.gov.in) was not operational on 15th June, 2021 and even prior to that. The appellant contacted the regional PF office at Bathinda for resolution so that amount could be deposited within the statutory time line but the said office could not help. The appellant, thereafter, also reached out to the EPFO Regional Office, Bathinda by way of email dated 15th June, 2021 stating the facts and requesting for extension of the due date as portal was facing operational issues. The appellant has also requested to the EPFO Regional Office, Bathinda not to treat the non-deposit of the PF contributions as a noncompliance as it was not due to fault at the appellant end but was a technical glitch or error.”

7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and reviewed the material available on the record. In the pres