CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.08.2022 for the AY 2019-20 by raising the following grounds :

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances and in law the NFAC has erred in not giving credit of TDS to the tune of INR 4,16,782/-. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, NFAC has erred in holding that Adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) can be made by CPC since it only involves an arithmetical without appreciating that allowability of adjustments (as mentioned in Ground 2 and 3 above) involves legal interpretation. The above grounds are grounds without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, withdraw, alter, modify, amend or vary the above grounds of appeal

before or at the time of hearing.

2. At the outset, Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that in this case, notice was issued for hearing by NFAC to the assessee on 21.07.2022, however, before the said date of hearing, the assessee had made a request to the NFAC that some time may be given for adjudication of the matter, which may be posted for hearing in the month of August. However, to the surprise of the assessee, the NFAC, without considering the request of the assessee had dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing the impugned order. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that, given a chance, the assessee would appear before the NFAC at the time and place given by the authority and submit all the detailed information to the authority. Further, the Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee is also having the case on merit.

3. On the other hand, Ld.DR had submitted that the assessee is a company and the assessee was aware about its legal rights / obligations. In this case, the issue involved is applicability of disallowance of PF / ESI on account of non fulfilment of the condition as mentioned in section 43B and 36(1)(va). Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) and it was submitted that the assessee failed to demonstrate that the payments of ESI/PF were made prior to the due date of depositing the amount as per ESI / PF Act. It was submitted that since the assessee failed to demonstrate before the lower authorities and also the lower authorities had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee, it was submitted that no purpose would be served if the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).