STAUNCH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS,MOHALI vs. ITO WARD 6 (1), CHANDIGARH (ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, , CHANDIGARH

From the facts, it emerges that the assessee failed to deposit employees contribution to PF / ESI by due dates as specified under 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.

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.