STAUNCH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS,MOHALI vs. ITO WARD 6 (1), CHANDIGARH (ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, , CHANDIGARH
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.721/CHANDI/2024
(िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2021-22)
M/s Staunch Business Solutions
SCF-7, Second Floor, 125, Kharar
SAS Nagar, Mohali. 140301. बनाम/
Vs.
ITO, Ward No. 6(1),
Chandigarh.
̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADHFS-4693-M
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
:
(ŮȑथŎ / Respondent)
अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Vineet Krishan (Adv.) – Ld. AR
ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by :
Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
01-04-2025
घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
08-04-2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vishakhapatnam [CIT(A)] dated 27-03-2024 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) disallowing belated payment of employee’s contribution to PF / ESI u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. The registry has noted delay of 26 days in the appeal which stand condoned. 2. From the facts, it emerges that the assessee failed to deposit employees contribution to PF / ESI by due dates as specified under 2
those acts. The same was reported by Tax Auditor. Accordingly, CPC added the same to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the adjustment, inter-alia, by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. CIT (2022) 143
Taxmann.com 178 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) also held that such an adjustment could be made u/s 143(1) as per the decision of Chennai
Tribunal in the case of M/s Electrical India & ors. (ITA
No.789/Chny/2022 & ors.). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
3. We find that the impugned adjudication follows binding judicial precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the adjudication could not be faulted with. The Ld. AR has referred to the decision of Cuttack
Bench of tribunal in the case of M/s Nirakar Security & Consultancy
Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.98/Ctk/2022 dated 17-10-2022) to state that this deduction could be claimed u/s 37(1). However, in our opinion, specific provision would prevail over general provisions and therefore, no such deduction could be allowed to the assessee. The Ld. AR has also disputed the due dates as specified under relevant acts. However, we find that the default has been reported by Tax Auditor in the Tax
Audit Report based on books of accounts as maintained by the assessee. Nothing has been shown to us that the due dates as indicated in the Tax Audit Report are not the correct due dates under relevant acts. Therefore, this plea does not have any substance.
The appeal stand dismissed.
Order pronounced on 08-04-2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद˟ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 08-04-2025
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT
4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR
5. गाडŊफाईल/GF