Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2019-20 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi‟s DIN and order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048291800(1), dated 28-12- 2022, in proceedings 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
1. 1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.22,32,650/- [i.e. Rs. 11,95,529 u/s 43B + Rs. 10,37,125 u/s 36(1)(va)] made by learned DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru on account of employees contribution of P.F and E.S.I u/s 36(1)(va).
2. The appellant contends that learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition amounting to Rs.11,95,529 u/s 43B without appreciating that, the said disallowance was contrary to the binding judicial precedents / court rulings at the time of processing u/s 143(1).
3. The appellant contends that the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs.10,37,125 u/s 36(1)(va) without appreciating that, the appellant has already disallowed the same.
4. Learned I-T authorities erred in making double addition of the subject matter.
5. Learned I-T authorities erred in law and on facts in making disallowance u/s 143(1) of ITA 1961 on the basis of informative disclosure in tax audit report. The I-T authorities ought to have appreciated that, no any such disallowance was indicated in the Tax Audit Report.
Suffice to say, there is hardly any dispute between the parties that the hon‟ble apex court‟s recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has settled the issue regarding the disallowance of employee‟s contribution to PF/ESI made u/s 36(1)(va) in Revenue‟s favour. Their lordships hold in their very terms that such contribution ought to be deposited in the specified account on or before the “due” date prescribed under the corresponding statute than the “due” date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. We, thus, see no merit in assessee‟s instant sole substantive grievance.
Faced with the situation, Mr. Phadke next invited our attention to assessee‟s paper book running into 100 pages and more particularly, section 143(1) CPC‟s processing dated 06.05.2020. His case in light thereof that it prima facie emerges that this is an instance of double disallowance / addition regarding the above stated ESI/PF amount. The revenue is equally fair in submitting before us that the Assessing Officer will verify the instant clinching aspect to this limited extent in consequential proceedings as per law. We ordered accordingly.
This assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th June, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 12th June, 2023 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीऱधर्थी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent; 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे “A” / DR „A‟, ITAT, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
Date 1. Draft dictated on 06-06-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 07-06-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.