9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be admissible even though he deposits same before due date u/s 43B of the Act. Again, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [ 2020 (2) TMI 792 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that where assessee had not deposited employees' contributions towards PF and ESI within prescribed period in law and Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) made addition of aforesaid amount to income of assessee, impugned addition made to income of assessee was justified. Respectfully following the above decisions of Jurisdictional High Gujarat High Court, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). Adjustment u/s 143(1) - Addition/adjustment under in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8, 86,752 in spite of the fact that the same was allowable under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the IT. Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. Total tax effect 3,06,887/- 3. At the outset we note that the appeal is time-barred by 75 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that delay is caused due to the fact that the appeal has been filed during the Covid pandemic period and accordingly, the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. We note that the assessee company received the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) on 12-02-2020. However, in view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 15-12-2019 wherein certain adjustments were made. On perusal of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee noticed that the income had been increased by DCIT, CPC by Rs. 8,86,752/- since assessee had not deposited the Employee State Insurance (ESI) contribution with the concerned authorities before the due date prescribed under the respective Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: 6.1 I find that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. GSRTC [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Gujarat), this case Hon'ble High Court have comprehensively dealt with the issue. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed period in law and Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) made addition of aforesaid amount to income of assessee, impugned addition made to income of assessee was justified. Respectfully following the above decisions of Jurisdictional High Gujarat High Court, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). 6. On the issue whether disallowance on account of late deposit of ESI can be subject of matter of addition/adjustment under intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act since the issue is a debatable one wherein various Courts/ Tribunals have taken a divergent view in the matter, in our the view, the issue stands covered by the decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en no jurisdictional High Court decision on this issue, in which case, in our view, the issue could have been debatable. However so far as the present facts are concerned, in our considered view, Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in facts and law in coming to the conclusion that disallowance made by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act on account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI of Rs.8,85,284/- within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law. 6.1 In view of the above, in our considered view Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in confirming addition/ disallowance in respect of late payment of ESI amounting to Rs. 8,86,752/- in the instant set of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
