Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member
ITA No. 452/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)
Patric John Assistant Commissioner of Plot No. 225, F-2, 6th Street Income Tax Modern City, Pattabiram Alappuzha vs. Poonamallee Tiruvallur 600072 [PAN: AFAPJ9149Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: ------- None ------- Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024
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- 23/1050132771(1) dated 25.02.2023 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.
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)(va) ESI & PF disallowance in question of Rs.21,35,115/- despite the fact that it had complied
2 ITA No. 452/Coch/2023 Patric John with all the 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.
Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 23rd October, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin