DIPEN KUMARPAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. NFAC- DCIT, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

M.A. No. 338/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 1703/MUM/2022) Assessment Year: 2019-2020 ITO Ward- 41(3)(1), Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Room No. 753, 7th floor, G- 603, Patel Niwas, Sainath Vs. Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Road, Malad (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400604. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AADPP 6112 D Appellant Respondent

ITA No. 1703/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Assessing Officer National 603, Patel Niwas, Sainath Faceless Centre, New Delhi. Vs. Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400604. PAN No. AADPP 6112 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. P.D. Chougule, DR Date of Hearing : 11/08/2023 : Date of pronouncement 30/08/2023

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 2 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue is By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue is By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue is seeking recall/rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated seeking recall/rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated seeking recall/rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 07.09.2022 passed in ITA No. 1703/Mum/2022 for assessment 07.09.2022 passed in ITA No. 1703/Mum/2022 for assessment 07.09.2022 passed in ITA No. 1703/Mum/2022 for assessment year 2019-2020.

2.1 Before us, the Ld. DR referred to the para No. 5 of the order Before us, the Ld. DR referred to the para No. 5 of the order Before us, the Ld. DR referred to the para No. 5 of the order of the Tribunal(supra), wherein , wherein the Tribunal followed the decision of followed the decision of Coordinate bench in the case of Kalpesh Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. the Coordinate bench (supra) and deleted the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(via) of the Act and deleted the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(via) of the Act and deleted the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(via) of the Act on account of employees contribution to PF/ESI. It was held by the on account of employees contribution to PF/ESI. It was held by the on account of employees contribution to PF/ESI. It was held by the Tribunal that disallowance of employees contribution to PF/ESI was Tribunal that disallowance of employees contribution to PF/ESI was Tribunal that disallowance of employees contribution to PF/ESI was not maintainable under the provis not maintainable under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. ions of section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. DR referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Ld. DR referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Ld. DR referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT in 143 Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT in 143 Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT in 143

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 3 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

taxmann.com 178 (SC taxmann.com 178 (SC) and submitted that decision of the Hon’ble and submitted that decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court act retrospectively Supreme Court act retrospectively and hence the claim of the and hence the claim of the assessee being incorrect claim, t rrect claim, the disallowance u/s 143(1) of the he disallowance u/s 143(1) of the Act is justified. He accordingly submitted that order of the Tribunal Act is justified. He accordingly submitted that order of the Tribunal Act is justified. He accordingly submitted that order of the Tribunal (supra) need to be rectified or recall for deciding in the light of the (supra) need to be rectified or recall for deciding in the light of the (supra) need to be rectified or recall for deciding in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ble Supreme Court.

“41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectifica prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 4 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" under could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" under could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" under Section 254 (2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal. (2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal. 42. In our judgment, it is also well 42. In our judgment, it is also well- settled that a judicial decis settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a `new rule' but to maintain and expound the the Court to pronounce a `new rule' but to maintain and expound the the Court to pronounce a `new rule' but to maintain and expound the `old one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or `old one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or `old one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The law find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the decision decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the decision decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. position which was earlier not correctly understood. 43. Salmond in his well 43. Salmond in his well-known work states; "(T)he theory of case la "(T)he theory of case law is that a judge does not make law; he w is that a judge does not make law; he merely declares it; and the overruling of a previous decision is a merely declares it; and the overruling of a previous decision is a merely declares it; and the overruling of a previous decision is a declaration that the supposed rule never was law. Hence any declaration that the supposed rule never was law. Hence any declaration that the supposed rule never was law. Hence any intermediate transactions made on the strength of the supposed intermediate transactions made on the strength of the supposed intermediate transactions made on the strength of the supposed rule are governed by the l rule are governed by the law established in the overruling aw established in the overruling decision. The overruling is retrospective, except as regards decision. The overruling is retrospective, except as regards decision. The overruling is retrospective, except as regards matters that are res judicatae or accounts that have been settled matters that are res judicatae or accounts that have been settled matters that are res judicatae or accounts that have been settled in the meantime". (emphasis supplied) in the meantime". (emphasis supplied) 44. It is no doubt true that after a historic decision in 44. It is no doubt true that after a historic decision in Golak Nath v. Golak Nath v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 762, this Court has accepted the doctrine Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 762, this Court has accepted the doctrine Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 762, this Court has accepted the doctrine of `prospective overruling'. It is based on the philosophy: "The past of `prospective overruling'. It is based on the philosophy: "The past of `prospective overruling'. It is based on the philosophy: "The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration". It may, cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration". It may, cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration". It may, however, be stated that this is an ex however, be stated that this is an exception to the general rule of the ception to the general rule of the doctrine of precedent. doctrine of precedent.” 4.1 We are of the opinion the Article 141 e of the opinion the Article 141 of the Constitution of of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that law declared by the Supreme Court shall India, 1950 provides that law declared by the Supreme Court shall India, 1950 provides that law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding in all courts within the territory of the India. The n all courts within the territory of the India. The n all courts within the territory of the India. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Act retrospectively because cision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Act retrospectively because cision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Act retrospectively because the decision only discovers decision only discovers the correct principle of law ,which principle of law ,which has to be be be applied applied applied retrospectively retrospectively retrospectively unless unless unless specifically specifically specifically provided provided provided for for for prospective implementation. Accordingly, prospective implementation. Accordingly, non consideration of non consideration of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 5 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

services p ltd (supra), there is mistake apparent from record, and services p ltd (supra), there is mistake apparent from record, and services p ltd (supra), there is mistake apparent from record, and hence the order of the Tribunal (supra) is recalled for adjudication. the order of the Tribunal (supra) is recalled for adjudication. the order of the Tribunal (supra) is recalled for adjudication. The Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is accordingly The Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue The Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue allowed.

5.2. After considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as 5.2. After considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as 5.2. After considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the findings given in the impugned orders, the findings given in the impugned orders, we find that there is no we find that there is no dispute that employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI has been dispute that employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI has been dispute that employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI has been made late and beyond the due date made late and beyond the due date prescribed u/s.36(1)(va) of the prescribed u/s.36(1)(va) of the respective acts. The issue whether, employees’ contribution of PF & ESI respective acts. The issue whether, employees’ contribution of PF & ESI respective acts. The issue whether, employees’ contribution of PF & ESI which has not been deposite which has not been deposited before the due date under the relevant d before the due date under the relevant acts and regulations, can it be treated as deemed income u/s. 2(24)(x) acts and regulations, can it be treated as deemed income u/s. 2(24)(x) acts and regulations, can it be treated as deemed income u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). There were various sets of judgments in favour of the r.w.s. 36(1)(va). There were various sets of judgments in favour of the r.w.s. 36(1)(va). There were various sets of judgments in favour of the assessee including the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. assessee including the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. assessee including the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. r.w.s. 36(1)(va), wherein it was held that if employee's contribution w.s. 36(1)(va), wherein it was held that if employee's contribution w.s. 36(1)(va), wherein it was held that if employee's contribution towards PF and ESI has been deposited on or before due date of filing towards PF and ESI has been deposited on or before due date of filing towards PF and ESI has been deposited on or before due date of filing of return u/s 139(1), the same has to be allowed. However, the Hon'ble of return u/s 139(1), the same has to be allowed. However, the Hon'ble of return u/s 139(1), the same has to be allowed. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) held as under: reported in (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) held as under:- 52. When Parliament introduced 52. When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the , what was on the statute book, statute book, statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section was only employer’s contribution ( was only employer’s contribution ( 34(1)(iv) 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of ). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning. On the application of the original principles employer’s earning. On the application of the original principles employer’s earning. On the application of the original principles of law it could have been treated only as of law it could have been treated only as receipts not amounting receipts not amounting

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 6 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, 89, inserting inserting Section 36(1)(va) and and simultaneously simultaneously inserting the second proviso of inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was , its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance discussed previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance discussed previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance Bill clearly stated that the provisions Bill clearly stated that the provisions – especially second proviso especially second proviso to Section 43B Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to r long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate etain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the from the employees (whether the amount is received from the from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute) as loyee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute) as loyee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute) as income income - it is the character of the amount that is important, i.e., it is the character of the amount that is important, i.e., not income earned. Thus, amounts retained by the employer not income earned. Thus, amounts retained by the employer not income earned. Thus, amounts retained by the employer from out of the employee’s income by way of deduction etc. were from out of the employee’s income by way of deduction etc. were from out of the employee’s income by way of deduction etc. were treated as income in the hands of the employer. The significance as income in the hands of the employer. The significance of this provision is that on the one hand it brought into the fold of this provision is that on the one hand it brought into the fold of this provision is that on the one hand it brought into the fold of “income” amounts that were receipts or deductions from of “income” amounts that were receipts or deductions from of “income” amounts that were receipts or deductions from employees income; at the time, payment within the prescribed employees income; at the time, payment within the prescribed employees income; at the time, payment within the prescribed time – by wa by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their y of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va) Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this ). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employer distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv) Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer ( employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continue and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, be maintained. On the other hand, Section 43B Section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees’ liability. These include liabilities forming part of the assessees’ liability. These include liabilities forming part of the assessees’ liability. These include liabilities such as tax such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone entitle an assessee to the benefit of deduction from these alone entitle an assessee to the benefit of deduction from these alone entitle an assessee to the benefit of deduction from the total income. The essential objective of the total income. The essential objective of Section 43B Section 43B is to ensure that if assessees are following the mercantile method of ensure that if assessees are following the mercantile method of ensure that if assessees are following the mercantile method of accounting, nevertheless, the deduction of such liabilities, based accounting, nevertheless, the deduction of such liabilities, based accounting, nevertheless, the deduction of such liabilities, based only on book entries, would not be given. To pass muster, only on book entries, would not be given. To pass muster, only on book entries, would not be given. To pass muster, actual payments were a necessary pre payments were a necessary pre-condition for allowing the condition for allowing the expenditure. expenditure.

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 7 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

income whereas the second is deemed a income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, n income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees’ income and held in since it is the deduction from the employees’ income and held in since it is the deduction from the employees’ income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while while while interpreting interpreting interpreting the the the obligation obligation obligation of of of every every every assessee assessee assessee under Section 43B Section 43B.

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 8 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective deposit has been made after the due date prescribed under respective Acts, the same is not allowable. It i Acts, the same is not allowable. It is a trite law that once the Hon'ble s a trite law that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the Supreme Court has decided and settled the issue, then it becomes the law of the land and it has to be interpreted and understood as if it was law of the land and it has to be interpreted and understood as if it was law of the land and it has to be interpreted and understood as if it was from the date of the enactment of the statute/provisions. Once the from the date of the enactment of the statute/provisions. Once the from the date of the enactment of the statute/provisions. Once the delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI beyond the ment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI beyond the ment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI beyond the due date of respective Acts, has been interpreted to be deemed income, due date of respective Acts, has been interpreted to be deemed income, due date of respective Acts, has been interpreted to be deemed income, then the same is not allowable claim, therefore no such deduction of then the same is not allowable claim, therefore no such deduction of then the same is not allowable claim, therefore no such deduction of claim can be allowed. In fact, it tantamount to incorrect c claim can be allowed. In fact, it tantamount to incorrect claim made in laim made in the return of income, which can be adjusted or disallowed. The scope of the return of income, which can be adjusted or disallowed. The scope of the return of income, which can be adjusted or disallowed. The scope of adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) reads as under: adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) reads as under:-

(a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely: following adjustments, namely:—

(i) any arithmetical error in the return; (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; from any information in the return;

(iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (1) of section 139;

(iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; total income in the return;

(v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of t under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under subsection (1) of furnished beyond the due date specified under subsection (1) of furnished beyond the due date specified under subsection (1) of section 139; or section 139; or

(vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: income in the return:

Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode: writing or in electronic mode:

Provided further t Provided further that the response received from the assessee, if hat the response received from the assessee, if any, shall be considered before making any adjustment, and in any, shall be considered before making any adjustment, and in any, shall be considered before making any adjustment, and in

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 9 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

a case where no response is received within thirty days of the a case where no response is received within thirty days of the a case where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of such intimation, such adjustments shall be made: issue of such intimation, such adjustments shall be made: issue of such intimation, such adjustments shall be made: 7. Ergo, once there is i 7. Ergo, once there is incorrect claim apparent from the return of income, ncorrect claim apparent from the return of income, then the section provides that adjustment has to be made. The Auditor then the section provides that adjustment has to be made. The Auditor then the section provides that adjustment has to be made. The Auditor in the audited accounts only points out the date of payment and the due in the audited accounts only points out the date of payment and the due in the audited accounts only points out the date of payment and the due date prescribed under the respective Act (PF and ESI Act) and i date prescribed under the respective Act (PF and ESI Act) and i date prescribed under the respective Act (PF and ESI Act) and it is incumbent upon the assessee that, while computing the income he has incumbent upon the assessee that, while computing the income he has incumbent upon the assessee that, while computing the income he has to disallow the said payment, if it has been made beyond the due date. to disallow the said payment, if it has been made beyond the due date. to disallow the said payment, if it has been made beyond the due date. Thus, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, such claim cannot Thus, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, such claim cannot Thus, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, such claim cannot be allowed as it is an incorrect claim an be allowed as it is an incorrect claim and therefore, it falls within scope d therefore, it falls within scope of prima facie adjustment u/s.143(1). Accordingly, we confirm the order of prima facie adjustment u/s.143(1). Accordingly, we confirm the order of prima facie adjustment u/s.143(1). Accordingly, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT (A) holding that once the Hon’ble Apex Court has settled of the ld. CIT (A) holding that once the Hon’ble Apex Court has settled of the ld. CIT (A) holding that once the Hon’ble Apex Court has settled the issue, then that is the law which is applicable retrospectively and the issue, then that is the law which is applicable retrospectively and the issue, then that is the law which is applicable retrospectively and therefore, any such claim fore, any such claim of payment on account of employees’ of payment on account of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due dates given in the respective contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due dates given in the respective contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due dates given in the respective acts as given in 36(1)(va) is incorrect claim which needs to be acts as given in 36(1)(va) is incorrect claim which needs to be acts as given in 36(1)(va) is incorrect claim which needs to be disallowed / adjusted even within the scope of prima facie disput disallowed / adjusted even within the scope of prima facie disput disallowed / adjusted even within the scope of prima facie dispute u/s.143(1). Therefore, disallowance has rightly been made by CPC, u/s.143(1). Therefore, disallowance has rightly been made by CPC, u/s.143(1). Therefore, disallowance has rightly been made by CPC, Bangalore.” 5.1 Respectfully following the above, the grounds of appeal of the Respectfully following the above, the grounds of appeal of the Respectfully following the above, the grounds of appeal of the assessee for claim of employees contribution assessee for claim of employees contribution to PF/ESI amounting to PF/ESI amounting to Rs.7,86,220/- are dismissed. are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 30/08/2023. /08/2023.

Sd/ Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA AMIT SHUKLA) (OM PRAKASH KANT) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/08/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh 10 M.A No. 338/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 1703/M/2022

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai