SARASWATY PRESS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC,, BENGALURU

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income
Tax,
Appeal
ADDL/JCIT(A)-2,
Ranchi
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 31.03.2025. 2. The ld. AR instead of arguing on the merits of the case only submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not decide Ground No.1 rather the ld.
CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on Ground No.2 in respect of employees’
contribution of PF/ESI amounting to Rs.11,55,943/-. The ld. CIT(A) was fully remained silent on the Ground
No.1 ignoring the revised audit report dated 04.07.2024. The prayer of the ld. AR is that the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.25,62,93,720/- along with tax audit report and in row no.21a(B)(g) of the said tax audit report, it was mentioned by the tax
Saraswaty Press Ltd

2
auditor that the assessee had ‘liability of contingent nature’ amounting to Rs.7,15,47,555/- under different heads of liability. The ld. AR further submits that later on after detecting his mistake in reporting correctly the tax audit report, the tax auditor filed a revised tax audit report in Form no.3CA and 3CD on 04.07.2024 and in the said revised tax audit report, the figures of ‘liability of contingent nature’ amounting to Rs.7,15,47,555/- was reduced to Rs.Nil, but the CPC processed the original return of income u/s 143(1) and computed total taxable income at Rs.32,89,97,210/- by adding two sums i.e. Rs.7,15,47,555/- on account of ‘liability of contingent nature’ and the other on account of non-timely deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI amounting to Rs.11,55,943/-. The prayer of the assessee is that when the tax auditor has filed tax report by correcting mistake, hence there must be deletion of addition of Rs.7,15,47,555/-.
3. Contrary to that the ld. DR supports the impugned order but and conceded to this fact that the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed or adjudicated the issue relates to Ground No.1 regarding ‘liability of contingent nature’
amounting to Rs.7,15,47,555/-. The ld. DR submitted that the matter in issue can be remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration as the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this issue.
4. Upon hearing the counsels of respective parties, we have gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and we find that the assessee has taken two grounds before the ld. CIT(A) which read as follows:
“6. Ground of Appeal: (1) 1. For that the learned assessing authority erred in disallowing Rs 7.15 being Contingent liabilities which was wrong and based on his erroneous findings since these liabilities, being contingent in nature only been disclosed in the Notes on Accounts of statement of Accounts, has not been crystallized as final liabilities as on the closing date of accounts and accordingly has not been provided for in the accounts resulting which profit for the year has not been reduced by this amount Accordingly there was no scope of disallowance of the same and this disallowance should be deleted.
Saraswaty Press Ltd

3
2. For that the learned assessing authority erred in disallowing Rs
11,55,943/- being late deposit of employees contribution of PF / ESI contributions although the said amounts were deposited long before the due date of submission of Income Tax Return u/s 139(1) of the Act in pursuance of the decisions of various judicial forums including the decisions of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s
VijoyShree Ltd. Said disallowances should be deleted.
3. For that your assessee craves leaves to prefer further and / or additional ground at the time or before the hearing of the appeal case.”
5. On perusal of para 10 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) where the decision had been taken by the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld. CIT(A) had discussed the issue of deposit a sum of Rs.11,55,943/- in respect of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by taking the benefit of judgment of Apex Court passed in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 but the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed and adjudicated
Ground No.1. The ld. AR did not press the issue on payment of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF, hence on this issue the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed.
6. Since, the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate or discuss the issue in Ground No.1, hence, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to discuss or adjudicate the issue of addition on account of ‘liability of contingent nature’ of Rs.7,15,47,555/- keeping in view that the assessee filed a revised tax audit report on 04.07.2024. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 12th September, 2025. [Rajesh Kumar]

[Pradip Kumar Choubey]
Accountant Member

Judicial Member
Saraswaty Press Ltd

4
Dated: 12.09.2025. RS

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT(A)-
4. CIT- ,

////
By order