9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant/revenue. Decided in favour of assessee. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia For the Appellant : Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar, Standing Counsel and Mr Rishabh Nagia, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Deepak Chopra with Mr Anmol Anand, Ms Priya Tandon and Ms Sheetal Kandpal, Advs. ORDER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): 1. We heard the matter at some length on 12.01.2023, when we had admitted the appeal and framed two questions of law. 2. On 12.01.2023 we rendered our decision with respect to the first question of law. We answered the question in favour of the appellant/revenue and against the respondent/assessee. 3. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited before filing of income tax return under Section 139(1) of the Act, no disallowance could be made, although the deposits were not within the timeframe fixed under the statutes governing provident fund and insurance. 8. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC). 8.1 A careful perusal of the said judgment shows, that the Supreme Court has taken a contra view. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal would have to be reversed. 9. Mr Deepak Chopra, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, has drawn our attention to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2018 would have been [sic to be] construed as being within time. 10.1 In support of his submission, Mr Chopra seeks to place reliance on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Mr Chopra says that this ground was also raised before the Tribunal. 11. Therefore, insofar as the first submission of Mr Chopra is concerned, which is founded on a Tribunal s view that disallowances could not be made under Section 143(1) of the Act while processing refund, we are of the opinion that this argument cannot be sustained. The reason being that the law declared by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. s case would be the law as it ought to have been when the provision was inserted. The judgment of the Supreme Court does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant/revenue, says that since the respondent/assessee had deposited the employee s contribution towards the provident fund amounting to Rs. 1,56,12,404/- on 16.08.2018, the Assessing Officer (AO) had rightly disallowed the deduction, as the due date was 15.08.2018. 7. According to us, the submission advanced by Mr Rai cannot be accepted. Since the due date fell on a date which was a National Holiday, the deposit could have been made by the respondent/assessee only on the date which followed the National Holiday. 8. Mr Chopra, as noticed on 12.01.2023, is right that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would help the respondent/assessee to tide over the objections raised on behalf of the appellant/revenue. 9. Therefore, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
