SWISS PHARMA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal has grossly erred in points of law and facts. 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal has erred in disallowing late payment of employees, contribution to PF and ESIC of Rs 14,98,673 in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of IT Act.

The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 04.03.2022, declaring a total loss of 10,97,374. The said return was processed, and the total income was determined at 4,01,300, after making an addition of 14,98,673 on account of disallowance of belated payment of employees' contributions to PF and ESIC under section 36(1) (va) of the Act. An income tax refund of 2,46,430 was granted.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

The ld. A.R. submitted that as regards ground no. 2, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing late payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund and ESI. As regards ground no. 3, the ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in granting income tax refund of Rs 2,27,129 as against income tax refund claimed of Rs 3,28,129 as per return of income files.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards ground no. 2, issue raised by the assessee is held as against assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 138 taxmann.com 178 (SC). The position of Hon’ble High Court in respect of divergent view of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which was admitted by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Shree Raghukul Texprints Pvt. Ltd. and Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat as well as Utkranti Solutions Pvt. Ltd. will not be applicable in the present case. Hence, ground no. 2 is dismissed. As regards ground no. 3, if there is any refund as claimed by the assessee, the same needs verification and if the assessee is entitled, the same should be considered by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to do needful. Thus, ground no. 3 is party allowed for statistical purpose. Ground no. 1 is general in nature and not to be adjudicated.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,