9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO, CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal. The aforesaid finding of fact cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be perverse. It is not the case of the assessee that the aforesaid finding of fact is perverse. It is well settled in law that this Court, in exercise of powers u/s 260A of the Act, cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. (See Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi by LRs [ 2016 (10) TMI 1233 - SUPREME COURT] and Softbrands India Private Limited [ 2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] ) - No substantial question of law arises. - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO For the Appellant: M/s. Harsheet Reddy Law Firm, Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n intimation under Section 143 (1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.05.2020 by which a sum of Rs. 1,85,76,482/- was disallowed on account of assessee s contribution under the ESI and PF and the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,85,76,482/- and the tax payable on this income was computed at Rs. 55,72,944/-. The credit of TDS of Rs. 72,87,370/- was allowed and the refund was determined at Rs. 11,61,797/-. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ). The CIT(A), by order dated 18.12.2023, dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 13.03.2024, inter alia held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43B, its intention was not to treat the desperate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance Bill clearly stated that the provisions especially second proviso to Section 43B was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2 (24) (x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the stature) as income it is the character of the amount that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortion of Para 54 is extracted below for the facility of reference: In the opinion of this Court, the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. 12. Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid relevant extracts of the decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra), it is evident that the assessee has to make payment of the contribution to PF and ESI before the statutory dates in order to claim the amount as deduction. Admittedly, the assessee has not paid the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
