Chanasma Haluka Sarvodaya Majur Kamdar Sahkari Mandali Ltd, Mehsana V. The DCIT CPC, Bangaluru

ITA 261/AHD/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7859 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA No.261/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC-2” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.261/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chanasma Haluka Sarvodaya vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore. Majur Kamdar Sahkari Mandali Ltd., 124, Urmi Shoping Centre, Opp. B.K. Cinema Mehsana – 384 002. [PAN – AAAAC 0434 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 17.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the CIT(A), Gandhinagar for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 27.01.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19 by CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad upholding the disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESIC of Rs.32,30,290/- made as prima facie adjustments by CPC Bangalore is wholly illegal unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned addition. ITA No.261/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 2 of 3 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESIC of Rs.32,30 290/- made as prima facie adjustment by CPC. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the disallowance of employees contribution to PF & ESIC of Rs.32,30,290/- as prima facie adjustment made by CPC. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that when the issue under appeal is highly controversial and SLP against it has been admitted by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the adjustment made by CPC was illegal and unlawful. It is, therefore, prayed that the disallowance of Rs.32,30,290/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.” 3. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in supplying manpower, transport and labour contractor in ONGC. The assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.6,87,723/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of employees contribution to PF and ESIC of Rs.32,30,290/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notices. There is no fresh address filed by the assessee. Hence, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) by the assessee. 6. Ld. DR submitted that the issue contested by the assessee in the present appeal appears to be covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 7. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant material available on record. It appears that the issue contested by the assessee is covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) wherein the Hon’ble High Court ITA No.261/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 3 of 3 held that when the assessee had not deposited the mandatory contribution of PF and ESIC as per the prescribed date in those particular statute then the assessee cannot claim the deduction on the basis of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13 th day of July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 13 th day of July, 2022 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