Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1046398919(1) dated 20.10.2022 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte against the assessee.
The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal pleads that both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in invoking section 36(1)(v) ESI & PF disallowance in question despite the fact that it had complied with all the Muraleedharan Kalathil relevant provisions before the “due” date of filing section 139(1) return and also that such a course of action is not available in section 143(1)(a) processing.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings challenging the impugned sec.36(1)(va) and find no merit therein as per hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) wherein their lordships’ has accepted the department’s very contention that a taxpayer has to comply with the ESI & PF Act “due” dates rather than that of filing the return u/s.139(1) of the Act. So far as the assessee’s latter argument that the impugned disallowance could not be made in section 143(1)(v)(a) “processing”, case law [2024] 298 Taxman 159 (Bom.) (HC) Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT has rejected the very stand.
We accordingly see no merit in assessee’s instant sole substantive ground.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2024.