COGNEESOL PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. ADDLJCIT (A), AURANGABAD

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in interpreting section 36(1)(va) of the Act independently without considering the provisions of section 43B of the Act.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deeming the impact of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B as retrospective.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making additions of Rs.57,390/- on account of business expenditure incurred at clubs being entrance fees and subscription as per section 37 of the Act.

The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, however, its grievance revolves around a single issue namely, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance which was made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was unable to pay employees' contribution to respective ESI/PF Accounts within the due date, therefore, following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC), addition has been confirmed.

On due consideration of the record with the assistance of ld. Representative, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance. It has not been demonstrated before us as to how employees' contribution was paid to respective ESI/PF accounts within due date and if it was not paid within due date, then deduction cannot be allowed as business expenditure.

The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). Accordingly, the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) is confirmed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.