KABIR DUBEY,NOIDA vs. ITO (1) RANGE CODE 100 CIRCLE 5(1)(1) G B NAGAR, NOIDA

Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost argument seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing its ESI/EPF contribution of Rs. 15,57,375/-, it is noticed that the hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC) has already settled the issue in the department’s favour that the same ought to be deposited on or before the due date in the corresponding statute than that of filing of section 139(1) return. The assessee fails in it’s instant first and foremost ground in very terms.

Next comes equally important aspect of assessee’s compliance to the foregoing statutory provision going by the actual date of salary disbursement, which has not been adjudicated by both the learned authorities. I thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant grievance to this limited extent to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate factual verification subject to a rider that the assessee shall itself plead and prove at his own risk and responsibility that it had complied with the foregoing provision, going by the actual date of monthly salary disbursement in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.