DIPAK KANTI MAZUMDER,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1040/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 February 2024AY 2020-21Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed after a delay of 165 days due to issues with email follow-up. The sole issue was the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI due to delayed deposit.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is eligible for deduction. Whether Section 43B of the Act can be applied to employees' contribution to PF & ESI.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 07/02/2024Pronounced: 19/02/2024

O R D E R

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 15/02/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

The registry has informed that this appeal is time barred by 165 days and petition for condonation of delay has been filed and we find that the delay was on account of not following up of the e-mail id by the assessee on which the first appellate order was received. However, when the assessee was apprised of the same by his authorized representative, he immediately took steps for filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the same and in the larger interest of justice, delay is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.

Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dipak Kanti Mazumder

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →