Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 3rd September, 2021 passed for A.Y. 2018-19.
Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kiran Automobiles Private Limited
The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal, out of which Grounds No. 3 and 4 are general grounds of appeal, which do not call for recording of any finding.
3. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has pleaded that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.28,66,076/-, which was disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to make payments of PF & ESI within due date to these respective accounts.
4. In Ground No. 2, the assessee has made arguments in its favour on the strength of order of ITAT in as well as on the strength of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State warehousing Corporation Limited -vs.- CIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 410.
5. With the assistance of ld. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered all these decisions and silent the controversy on this issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Limited –vs.- CIT reported in 143 taxmann.com 178 has held that if employees’ contribution is not paid to the respective P.F. & ESI Accounts, then assessee will not be entitled for any deduction. In view of Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kiran Automobiles Private Limited the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no other case law is to be followed. Therefore, preference to the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court as well as the orders of the ITAT over the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be given. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal are rejected.