Arham Pumps, Ahmedabad V. The DCIT. CPC, Bangalore Present Juridiction ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 216/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6196 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

ITA No.216/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.216/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arham Pumps, B-10 & B-12, Jagannath Industrial Estate, Near Gujarat Bottling, Rakhial, Ahmedabad – 380 023.. [PAN – AAOFA 2797 E] Vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore Present jurisdiction ACIT, Circle – 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hemanshu Shah, CA Revenue by Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. DR Da te o f He a r in g 04.10.2023 Da te o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 17.11.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in points of law and facts. 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of late payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC of Rs.78,466/- in intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of IT Act. 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234C of Rs.4,962/-.” 3. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 03.10.2019 declaring income of Rs.14,76,700/-. The CPC, Bangalore processed the return and issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.03.2020 ITA No.216/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 2 of 3 determining income at Rs.16,38,900/- thereby making disallowance of payment of Employee’s Contribution to PF and ESIC of Rs.78,466/- as well as Leave Encashment written back during the year at Rs.83,740/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the return of income was filed on 03.10.2019 and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 06.03.2020. The Hon’ble Apex Court has passed order in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2022] 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC) on 12.10.2022. Thus, till the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act which was issued on 06.03.2020, the matter was not finally settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Till that, various High Courts decided the issue either in favour of the Revenue or against the Revenue including Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which decided the issue in case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170, in favour of the Revenue. Hence, in view of the divergent decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the matter pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue is actually debatable which cannot be subject matter of disallowance made in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that in the intimation, disallowance was made on account of following three reasons which are Arithmetical error & incorrect claim under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) as well as disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. But, this is not arithmetic error and the claim was not made incorrectly as the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, the claim was legitimately made in the return of income. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CPC cannot make disallowance in different sub-sections as it can only disallowance applying either of one sub- section. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) was clearly mentioned that if statutory due date was not followed by the assessee in respect of belated payment of PF and ESIC, the same claim will not be allowed to the assessee. Merely the decision of ITA No.216/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 3 of 3 Hon’ble Apex Court came after the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act cannot change the interpretation given by the Hon’ble Apex Court when the matter was subjudice. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the issue contested by the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 17 th November, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 17 th November, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad