Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5795 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-07-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
11-07-2024
Assessment Year
2019-2020
Appeal Filed On
01-02-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 69/Ahd/2023 (िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assess ment Year : 2019-20) M / s. C hec k mat e Ser vi ce s Pv t. Lt d. G. F 6-9 , A maa n To wer , Su va s Col on y, F at e hg unj , Va do dar a, G uj ara t, 39 00 02 बनाम बनामबनाम बनाम/ V s . AD IT , CP C, Ba nga lo re & Dy .C IT Cir cl e- 1( 1)( 1) , Va d oda ra ᭭थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A A A C C 8 4 6 5 A (Appellant) . . (Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri M. R. Sahu, AR ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR D a t e o f H e a r i n g 12/07/2024 D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 16/07/2024 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC), Delhi, (i n short ‘the CIT( A) ’) dated 08.12.2022 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed its return of inco me f or A.Y. 2019-20 on 30.09.2019 declaring total ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 2 – income Rs.16,46,54,070/- and with a clai m of refund of Rs.7,32,82,770/-. The return wa s processed by the CPC, Bangalore on 31.03.2021 and an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was sent electronically by email on 01.04.2021. While processing the return an adjustment of Rs.5,87,43,293/- was made by the CPC on account of delay in deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI as mentioned in the tax audit report filed by the assessee. 3. The assessee had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority against this adjustment which wa s decided by the Ld. CI T( A) vide the i mpugne d order and the appeal of the assessee was dis missed. 4. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The assessee had t aken following grounds in this appeal: “ 1 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e a n d i n l a w , i t i s c h a n t e d t h a t I n t i m a t i o n i s s u e d u ' s . 1 4 3 (1 ) w a s d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d a s i n t i m a t i o n , d ig i t a l l y s i g n e d b y t h e A D I T . C P C B a n a g a l o r e ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d a s A O I o n 0 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 a n d E m a i l w a s s e n d o n 0 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 t h u s d at e o f i s s u a n c e o f t h e i n t i m a t i o n w a s 0 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 0 1 , a c c o r d i n g l y t h e in t i m a t i o n w a s i s s u e d b e y o n d t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d in P r o v i s o 5 t o s e c t i o n 1 4 3 ( 1 ) t h u s t h e i n t i m a t i o n w a s t i m e b a r r e d d e s e r v e s t o b e d e c l a r e d a s i n v a l i d , v o i d a b - i n i t i o a n d b a d i n l a w . 2 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f th e c a s e a n d i n l a w , i t i s o b j e c t e d t h a t t h e I n t i m a t i o n d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3/ 2 0 2 1 i s d e f e c t i v e d u e t o t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 3 – ( i ) . T h a t t h e a d j u s t m e n t s a r e m a d e i n t h e i n t i m a t i on w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g t h e s p e c i f i c l i m b o f t h e s e c t i o n 1 4 3 ( 1 ) (a ) w h i c h w a s a p p l i e d f o r m a k i n g s u c h a d j u s t m e n t s a c c o r d i n g l y P r in c i p l e s o f N a t u r a l J u s t i c e i s o f f e n d e d ; ( i i ) . T h a t t h e i n t i m a t i o n w a s i s s u e d r e f l e c t i n g i n co r r e c t E f i l l i n g A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t N o : 3 6 6 0 0 4 8 4 0 2 0 6 2 0 i g n o r i n g t h e c o rr e c t E f i l l i n g A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t N o : 1 8 4 3 6 0 6 1 1 3 0 0 9 1 9 f o r t h e r e t u r n o f i n c o m e f i l e d u / s . . 1 3 9 o n 3 0 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 9 . A s s e s s e e - A p p e l l a n t p r a y s b e f o r e t h e H o n ' b l e T r i b u n al t o t r e a t t h e i n t i m a t i o n d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 a s d e f e c t i v e f o r m a k i n g a d j u s t m e n t s a g a i n s t t h e a s s e s s e e . 3 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f th e c a s e a n d i n l a w , i t i s o b j e c t e d t h a t t h e i n t i m a t i o n d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3/ 2 0 2 1 w a s i s s u e d b y m a k i n g a d j u s t m e n t s w i t h o u t f o l l o w i n g t h e m a n d a t or y p r o c e d u r e s a s u n d e r : ( 1 ) . N e i t h e r a n y i n t i m a t i o n n o r a n y s h o w c a u s e n o t ic e w a s i s s u e d a s s p e c i f i e d i n P r o v i s o 1 t o S e c t i o n 1 4 3 ( 1 ) b e f o r e m a k i n g s u c h a d j u s t m e n t s ; ( i ) A d j u s t m e n t s a r e m a d e w i t h o u t p a s s i n g a j u d i c i o us o r d e r a n d n o t c o m m u n i c a t i n g t h e r e a s o n s o f a d j u s t m e n t s t h u s ma n d a t o r y p r o c e d u r e g i v e n i n P r o v i s o 2 t o s e c t i o n 1 4 3 ( 1 ) n o t f o l l o w e d . A s s e s s e e - A p p e l l a n t p r a y s b e f o r e t h e H o n ' b l e T r i b u n al t o d e l e t e t h e a d j u s t m e n t s m a d e i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 b e c a u s e n e i t h e r t h e m a n d a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s n o r t h e P r i n c i p l e s o f N a t u r a l J u s t i c e w a s f o l l o w e d b e f o r e m a k i n g s u c h a d j u s t m e n t s G R O U N D S O F A P P E A L R E L A T I N G T O M E R I T S A N D F A C T S O F T H E C A S E : 4 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f th e c a s e a n d i n l a w , t h e C I T ( A ) - N E A C D e l h i [ h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d a s C I T (A ) ) e r r e d i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e a d d i t i o n o f R s . 5 . 8 7 . 4 3 . 2 9 3 1- m a d e u s . 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n w i t h o u t a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t p r o c e s s i n g o f r e t u r n o f I n c o m e u s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) i s n o t a n ' a s s e s s m e n t ’ a n d s c o p e o f a d j u s t m e n t i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n i s l i m i t ed t h u s H o n ' b l e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c i s i o n i n t h e c a s e o f " C h e c k m a t e S er v i c e s P v t L t d V s . C I T [ 2 0 2 2] 1 4 3 t a x m a n n . c o m 2 7 8 ( S C )" h e l d i n t he c o n t e s t w h e r e a s s e s s m e n t w a s f r a m e d u / s . . 1 4 3 ( 3 ) m a y n o t b e a p p l i c a b l e t o ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 4 – t h e a d j u s t m e n t s m a d e i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n a c c o r d i n g l y t h e d i s a l l o w a n c e d e s e r v e s t o b e d e l e t e d i n f u l l . G R O U N D S O F A P P E A L R E L A T I N G T O M E R I T S A N D F A C T S O F T H E C A S E N O T R A I S E D B E F O R E C I T ( A ) - N F A C , D E L H I : 5 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f th e c a s e a n d i n l a w , t h e C I T ( A ) e r r e d i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e a d d i t i o n o f R s . 5 , 8 7 , 4 3 , 2 9 1 / - m a d e u / s 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n w i t h o u t a p p r e ci a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I a r e t r e a te d a s ' D e e m e d I n c o m e ' u / s . 2 ( 2 4 ) ( x ) i n t h e b o o k s o f a c c o u n t s a n d no t b e i n g d e p o s i t e d w i t h i n t h e d u e d a t e s s p e c i f i e d u n d e r t h e r e l e v a n t a c t s a s g i v e n i n E x p l a n a t i o n - 1 t o s e c t i o n 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) d e d u c t io n u / s 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) w a s n o t c l a i m e d t h u s o n i t s s u b s e q u e n t a c c o u n t i n g in t h e b o o k s o f a c c o u n t i n c l u d i n g d e p o s i t w i t h a d d i t i o n a l l i a b i l i t y o f i n t e r e s t a n d p e n a l t y a s s p e c i f i e d u n d e r t h e r e l e v a n t A c t s s u c h ex p e n d i t u r e c h a n g e s i t s c o l o u r a n d i s a l l o w a b l e i n t h e h a n d s o f t h e a s s e s s e e e m p l o y e r u n d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g h e a d s : ( 1 ) . A s n o r m a l b u s i n e s s e x p e n d i t u r e u n d e r s e c t i o n 37 o f t h e L T A c t , 1 9 6 1 ; ( i i ) . A s b u s i n e s s e x p e n d i t u r e i n c u r r e d o n a c c o u n t of ' B u s i n e s s a n d C o m m e r c i a l E x p e d i e n c y " e l i g i b l e f o r d e d u c t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 3 7 o f t h e 1 . T A c t , 1 9 6 1 . A s s e s s e e - A p p e l l a n t p r a y s b e f o r e t h e H o n ' b l e T r i b u n al t o h e l d t h e e x p e n d i t u r e i n c u r r e d b y t h e A s s e s s e e - E m p l o y e r o n d ep o s i t i n g t h e e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n d u e t o ' b u s i n e s s a n d c o m m e r ci a l e x p e d i e n c y a s n o r m a l b u s i n e s s e x p e n d i t u r e d e s e r v e s t o a l l o w e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 3 7 o f t h e 1 . T A c t , 1 9 6 1 . 6 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f th e c a s e a n d i n l a w , t h e A O e r r e d i n m a k i n g d i s a l l o w a n c e o f R s . 4 3 , 00 , 4 4 0 / - c l a i m e d i n t h e r e t u r n o f i n c o m e u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 3 B o n p a y m e nt b a s i s w i t h o u t a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t i n a d v e r t e n t l y i n t h e T a x A u d i t R e p o r t t h e a m o u n t d i s a l l o w e d i n e a r l i e r p r e v i o u s y e a r s u n d e r se c t i o n 4 3 B a n d p a i d d u r i n g t h e c u r r e n t f i n a n c i a l y e a r w a s n o t r e f le c t e d b y t h e T a x A u d i t o r , t h u s a s s e s s e e p r a y s f o r a l l o w i n g t h e a m o u nt o f R s . 4 3 , 0 0 , 4 4 0 / - u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 3 B o n p a y m e n t b a s i s du r i n g t h e c u r r e n t f i n a n c i a l y e a r . 7 . T h a t t h e a b o v e g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l a r e i n d e p e n d e n t a n d p r e j u d i c e t o e a c h o t h e r a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t c r a v e s l ea v e t o a d d , a l t e r , ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 5 – w i t h d r a w o r r e p l a c e a n y g r o u n d o r g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l b e f o r e o r a t t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e a p p e a l . ” 6. A letter dated 18.01.2023 was also filed along with F or m No.36 explaining that ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 were purel y legal grounds and Ground Nos. 5 t o 6 wer e based o n facts and merits of the case. Subsequently, the assessee filed a letter dated 30.06.2023 withdrawing the grounds as originally filed and replacing them with two sets of grounds. The replaced additional jurisdictional legal grounds taken by the assessee are a s under: “ 1 . T h a t h a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , p ro v i s i o n s o f l a w a n d j u d i c i a l p r o p o s i t i o n s , t h e L d . C I T ( A ), N F A C , De l h i [ h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d a s C I T (A )] e r r e d i n c o n f i r m i n g t h e ad j u s t m e n t o f R s . 5 , 8 7 , 4 3 , 2 9 3 / - u / s . 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) r . w . s 2 ( 2 4 ) ( x ) o n a cc o u n t o f d e l a y i n d e p o s i t o f e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I m a de i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n u / s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) , d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 b y a p p l y i n g t h e H o n ' b l e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c i s i o n i n t h e c a s e o f C h e c k m a t e S e rv i c e s P v t L t d V s . C I T [ 2 0 2 2] 1 4 3 t a x m a n n . c o m 2 7 8 ( S C )' w i t h o u t a pp r e c i a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 1 4 3 ( 1 ) w a s n e i th e r r a i s e d n o r d i s c u s s e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , a c c o r d i n g l y t h e s a id d e c i s i o n h e l d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f s e c t i o n 1 4 3 ( 3 ) m a y n o t b e d i r e c t ly a p p l i c a b l e f u l l y t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h u s t o t h a t e x t en t t h e o r d e r o f t h e C I T ( A ) d e s e r v e s t o b e s e t - a s i d e . 2 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f th e c a s e a n d i n l a w , t h e C I T ( A ) e r r e d i n c o n f i r m i n g t h e a d j u s t m e n t o f R s. 5 , 8 7 , 4 3 , 2 9 3 / - u / s . 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) r . w . s 2 (2 4 ( x ) o n a c c o u n t o f d e l a y e d de p o s i t o f e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I i n t h e i n t i m a ti o n u / s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 w i t h o u t a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t f o r t h e r e t u r n o f i n c o m e f i l e d o n 3 0 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 9 f o r t h e A . Y . 2 0 1 9 - 2 0 th e d u e d a t e f o r i s s u i n g t h e i n t i m a t i o n w a s o n o r b e f o r e 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 a s s p e c i f i e d i n P r o v i s o 5 t o s e c t i o n 1 4 3 ( 1 ) a n d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e i n t i m a t i o n w a s d i g i t a l l y s i g n e d o n 0 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 a n d w a s i s s u e d to t h e a s s e s s e e b y E m a i l o n 0 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 , a c c o r d i n g l y t h e I n t i m a t i o n w a s i s s u e d b e y o n d t h e t i m e p e r i o d a n d b a r r e d b y l i m i t a t i o n , t hu s d e s e r v e s t o b e h e l d a s i n v a l i d , v o i d a b - i n i t i o a n d b a d i n l a w an d t o b e a n n u l l e d . ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 6 – 3 . T h a t w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e c o n t e n t i o n r a i s e d i n t h e g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l n o . 2 a b o v e , t h e C I T ( A ) e r r e d i n c o n f i r m i ng t h e a d j u s t m e n t o f R s . 5 , 8 7 , 4 3 , 2 9 3 / - u / s . 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) r . w . s 2 (2 4 ) ( x ) o n a c c o u n t o f d e l a y e d d e p o s i t o f e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n u / s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 , d i g i t a l l y si g n e d o n 0 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 w i t h o u t a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h e in t i m a t i o n w a s s i l e n t r e g a r d i n g w h i c h t y p e o f a d j u s t m e n t w a s a p p l ie d a s s p e c i f i e d u / s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) c l a u s e s ( 1 ) t o ( v i ) , a c c o r d i n g l y t h e m a n d a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s a r e n o t f o l l o w e d , t h u s t h e i n t i m a t i o n m ay b e h e l d a s i s s u e d w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y o f l a w a n d d e s e r v e s t o b e h e l d a s u n s u s t a i n a b l e i n t h e e y e s o f l a w . 4 . T h a t w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e c o n t e n t i o n r a i s e d i n t h e g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l n o . 2 &3 a b o v e , t h e C I T ( A ) e r r e d i n c o n f i r mi n g t h e a d j u s t m e n t o f R s . 5 , 8 7 , 4 3 , 2 9 3 / - u / s . 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) r . w . s 2 ( 2 4 ( x ) o n a c c o u n t o f d e l a y e d d e p o s i t o f e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i on t o P F a n d E S I i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n u / s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 , d i g it a l l y s i g n e d o n 0 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 w i t h o u t a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t t h e in t i m a t i o n i s s u e d u / s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) i s s i l e n t r e g a r d i n g I s s u a n c e o f p r i o r i nt i m a t i o n / s h o w c a u s e n o t i c e a s s p e c i f i e d i n p r o v i s o 1 a n d c o m p l i a nc e t o p r o v i s o 2 t o s e c t i o n 1 4 3 ( 1 ) , t h u s p r i n c i p l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t ic e w a s o f f e n d e d , a c c o r d i n g l y t h e i n t i m a t i o n d e s e r v e s t o q u a s h e d . 5 . T h a t t h e a b o v e a d d i t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l a r e i n d e p e n d e n t t o e a c h o t h e r a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t c r av e s , l e a v e t o a d d , a l t e r , a m e n d o r v a r y a n d / o r w i t h d r a w a n y o r a ll o f t h e g r o u n d s o f A p p e a l e i t h e r b e f o r e t h e d a t e o f h e a r i n g o r a t th e t i m e o f h e a r i n g o f t h e a b o v e a p p e a l . ( B ) . A d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s r a i s e d a b o v e b y t h e a s s e s s ee a r e p u r e l y l e g a l i n n a t u r e g o e s t o t h e r o o t o f t h e m a t t e r a n d a r e e m a n a t i n g o u t o f t h e f a c t s a p p e a r i n g i n t h e i m p u g n e d i n t i m a t i o n da t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 a n d d i g i t a l l y s i g n e d o n 0 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 . T h e l e g a l g r o u nd s d o n o t r e q u i r e a n y i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d a l l m a t e r i a l s a r e a l re a d y o n r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e T r i b u n a l . ( C ) . I t i s h u m b l y p r a y e d b e f o r e y o u r h o n o u r t o a d m it a n d a d j u d i c a t e t h e l e g a l a d d i t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l g r o un d s r a i s e d a b o v e . R e l i a n c e i n t h i s r e g a r d i s p l a c e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n s i n t h e c a s e s o f " N a t i o n a l T h e r m a l P o w e r C o r p o r a t i o n v s . C I T ( 1 9 9 8 ) 2 2 9 I T R 3 8 3 ( S C )" , " V M T S p i n n i n g C o . L t d V s . C I T ( 2 0 1 6 ) 3 8 9 I T R 3 2 6 ( P &H ) " , " S i k s a O A n u s a d h a n V s . C I T ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 3 6 I T R 1 1 2 ) [ O r is s a H C ) " , C I T V s . J a i P a r a b o l i c S p r i n g s L t d ( 2 0 0 8 ) 3 0 6 I T R 4 2 ( D el . H C ) , " C I T V s . C e l l u l o s e P r o d u c t s o f I n d i a L t d [ 1 9 8 5] 1 5 1 I T R 4 9 9 ( G u j . H C ) - ( F B )" , " P . V . D o s h i V s . C I T [ 1 9 7 8] 1 1 3 I T R 2 2 ( G u j . H C )" . ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 7 – 7. The replaced grounds taken on merit b y the assessee vide letter dated 30.06.2023 are as under: “ 1 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e a n d i n l a w 2 9 3 / C I T ( A ) e r r e d i n c o n f i r m i n g a d j u s t m e n t o f R s. 5 , 8 7 , 4 3 , 2 9 3 / - u / s . 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) r . w . s 2 (2 4 ( x ) o n a c c o u n t o f d e l a y e d de p o s i t o f e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I m a d e i n t h e i nt i m a t i o n u / s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 , d i g i t a l l y s i g n e d o n 0 1/ 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 w i t h o u t a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e f a c t t h a t e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n to P F a n d E S T a r e r e c o v e r e d f r o m t h e e m p l o y e e s o n d i s b u r s e m e n t o f s a la r y a n d w a g e s , a c c o r d i n g l y d u e d a t e f o r d e p o s i t o f e m p l o y e e s c o n t ri b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I t h a t i s w i t h i n 1 5 d a y s o f t h e f o l l o w i n g m o nt h h a s t o b e c o u n t e d f r o m t h e e n d o f t h e m o n t h d u r i n g w h i c h s a l ar y a n d w a g e s w a s a c t u a l l y d i s b u r s e d a m o n g t h e e m p l o y e e s , t h u s a ss e s s e e c l a i m s t h a t e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I w e r e d e p os i t e d o n o r b e f o r e 1 5 t h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g m o n t h i n w h i c h s a l a r y a n d w a g e s w e r e a c t u a l l y d i s b u r s e d , a c c o r d i n g l y p r a y s f o r r e l i e f o f t h e a d j u s t m e n t o f R s . 5 , 8 7 , 4 3 , 2 9 3 / - m a d e i n t h e i n t i m a t i o n i n f u l l . 2 . T h a t o n t h e f a c t s , a n d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e a n d i n l a w , t h e C I T ( A ) e r r e d c o n f i r m i n g a d j u s t m e n t i n o f Rs . 5 , 8 7 , 4 3 , 2 9 3 / - u / s . 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) r . w . s 2 (2 4 ) ( x ) o n a c c o u n t o f d e l a y e d d e p o s i t o f e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I m a d e i n t h e i nt i m a t i o n u / s . 1 4 3 ( 1 ) d a t e d 3 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 1 , d i g i t a l l y s i g n e d o n 0 1/ 0 4 / 2 0 2 1 w i t h o u t a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e f a c t e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I a r e t r e a t e d a s ' D e e m e d I n c o m e ' u / s . 2 ( 2 4 ) ( x ) ' i n t h e b o ok s o f a c c o u n t s o n i t s r e c e i p t / r e c o v e r y a n d n o t b e i n g d e p o s i t e d w i th i n t h e d u e d a t e s s p e c i f i e d u n d e r t h e r e l e v a n t A c t s a s g i v e n i n E x p l an a t i o n - 1 t o s e c t i o n 3 6 ( 1 ) ( v a ) , a c c o r d i n g l y d e d u c t i o n u / s . 3 6 ( 1 )( v a ) w a s n o t c l a i m e d t h u s o n i t s s u b s e q u e n t d e p o s i t a f t e r t h e d ue d a t e s s p e c i f i e d u n d e r t h e r e l e v a n t A c t s i n c u r r i n g a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n se s o f i n t e r e s t a n d p e n a l t y a s s p e c i f i e d u n d e r t h e r e l e v a n t A c t s , su c h l a t e d e p o s i t o f e m p l o y e e s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o P F a n d E S I i n c l u d i n g in t e r e s t a n d p e n a l t y a r e n o r m a l b u s i n e s s e x p e n d i t u r e m a y k i n d l y b e a l l o w e d u / s . 3 7 u n d e r t h e p r i n c i p l e o f " b u s i n e s s a n d c o m m e r ci a l e x p e d i e n c y " . 3 . T h a t t h e a b o v e g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l a r e I n d e p e n d e n t a n d p r e j u d i c e t o e a c h o t h e r a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t c r a v e s l ea v e t o a d d , a l t e r , w i t h d r a w , r e v i s e o r r e p l a c e a n y g r o u n d o r g r o u n d s of a p p e a l b e f o r e o r a t t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e a p p e a l . ” ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 8 – 8. Shri M. R . Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the intimation issued b y CPC was ti me barred. He explained that the due date for sending intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act for the A.Y.2 019-20 was on or before 31.03.2021 and that though the intimation was dated 31.03.2021, it wa s digitally signed on 01.04.2021 and thus was barred by li mi tation. He further sub mitted that the inti mation was send b y email on 01.04.2021 at 16:08 hours as recorded in the inti mation itself. According to the Ld. AR, the da te of af fixation of digital signature in inti mation should be treated as the a ctual date of intimation. He fu rther contended that the AO, CPC h ad control over the inti mation even after the date of issuing the intimation i.e. 31.03.2021 and was trans mitted to the assessee by e mail a fter the due date i.e. 31.03.2021. Therefore, the intimation should be treated as non-est and barred b y li mi tation. The Ld. AR further contended that the t ype of adjust ment made while processing the return was not me ntioned in the intimation. In the absence of the exact reason for a djust ment in the i ntimation, the sa me was non- speaking and non-reasoned and was without following the mandator y proced ure as specified under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that no prior intimation was given to the assessee regarding any a djust ment before processing the return and, therefore, the inti mation wa s legally unsustainable. ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 9 – 9. Per contra, Dr. Darsi Su man Ratna m, the Ld. CI T. DR submitted that th e ti me li mit for processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act was ext ended time-to-ti me b y the CBDT and that the inti mation dated 31.03.2021 was not barred by li mitation, e ven if it was c o mmunicated b y e mail on 01.04.2021. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to the order of Hon’ble S upre me Court in ca se of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, whereb y the li mitation period of all the proceedings was extended. Further, the Ld. CI T. DR has also brought to our notice the Order F . No . 225/132/2023/ITA-II dated 01.12.2023, as per which the ti me limit for processing of all the returns of A.Ys. 2 018-19, 2019-20 & 2021-22 with a refund claim was extended by CBDT till 31.01.2024. On merits, the Ld. CI T- DR strongly supported the order of the Ld. CI T( A). He sub mitted that identical issue was involved in the assessee’s o wn case in A.Y. 2018-19 and the adjust ment on account of belated pa yment of PF & ESI was upheld b y Ld. I TAT, Ah medabad i n ITA No . 68/Ahd/2023, dated 20.05.2024. The Ld. C IT- DR also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Corrtech International (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT , [ 2023] 152 taxmann.com 498 (Ahmedabad-Trib.). 10. On the issue of legal grounds raised by the assessee, th e Ld. CIT- DR vehe men tly argued that t hese grounds should not be ad mitted. He su b mitted that Hon’ble Supre me Court had categorically men tioned in the case of National Thermal Power ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 10 – Co. Ltd. vs . CI T, [ 1998] (97 Taxman 358) (SC) that the Tribunal can consider the question of law only wher e it is ne cessar y to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. He sub mitted that the legal questions as raised by the assessee we re not at all connected with cor rect a ssessment of tax liability of the assessee as t he adjust ment wa s correctl y made as per the la w as laid down b y the Hon ’ble Supre me Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited vs CIT (143 taxmann.com 178). He also placed reliance on the observation of the Hon ’ble Apex Court as given in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CI T, [1991] 187 ITR 688 in this regard and requested that the additional legal grounds as raised by the assessee should not be ad mitted. 11. In re joinder, the Ld. AR sub mitted that the ti me li mit as extended by the Hon’ble Supre me Court was for filing appeals/suits etc. and that such extension was not applicable for issue of inti mation under Section 143(1) of the Act. He also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Vinod Malik vs. ADIT, C PC in I TA No.1635/Del/2021, dated 25.11.2022 and the decision of ITAT, Ah medabad in the case of Arhan Pumps vs. DCIT , [2022] 140 taxmann.com 204 (Ahd.Trib.), i n support of his contention that if no intimati on is given for making any adjust ment or disallowance while processing the re turn under Section 143(1) of the Act, such intimation is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Ld. AR further s ubmitted that the decision of ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 11 – the Supre me Cour t in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra) was applicable to the assess ments co mpleted u/s 143(3) of the Act and that no adjust me nt could have made while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act on the basis of the said judge ment. Decision on factual grounds: 12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. We will first take up the grounds taken b y the assessee on merits as the only ground taken by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was in respect of addition of ₹5,87,43,293/- in the respect of payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due date. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld this adjustment made by CPC while processing the return following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the assessee’s own case. The Apex Court had held in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra) that there is clear distinction between employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law [in terms of section 36(1)(iv)] and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it from its employees' [in terms of section 36(1)(va)]. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24)(x) and therefore, subjected to conditions spelt out by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two contributions - the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 12 – whereas the second is deemed to be an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while interpreting the obligation of every assessee under section 43B. If the same is not deposited as per mandate of section 36(1)(va), the deduction of the same would not be available to the assessee. 13. So far as me rits of the disallowance is concerned, the assessee has not raised an y serious objection. The onl y objection of the assessee i s that the decision of the Apex Court was applicable only i n the case of scr utiny assess ment and that no adjustment can be made on the basis of this decision while processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee has assailed the adjustment so made in the intimation issued by CPC while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act. We do not find any merit in the objection of the assessee. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra) is declaration of law which is applicable to all proceedings whether it is scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act or the proceeding of processing under Section 143(1) of the Act. The ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court holds the field and is binding in respect of all the proceedings. Therefore, the objection of the assessee that no such adjustment could have been made while processing the return is rejected. In fact, similar adjustment was made in assessee’s own case while processing the return for A.Y. 2018- 19 which was upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 68/Ahd/2023 dated 20.05.2024. Similarly, the Co-ordinate Bench of this ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 13 – Tribunal had also upheld the adjustment in respect of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI while processing the return in the case of Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Considering the declaration of law on this issue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of the Act as well as the decision of this Tribunal in various cases, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the adjustment as made while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. 14. The assessee has raised grounds contending that employees’ contribution to PF & ESI were deposited on or before 15 th day of the following month in which salary and wages were actually disbursed. It is also contended that the late deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI including interest and penalty are normal business expenditure and may kindly be allowed under Section 37 of the Act. These grounds taken by the assessee are totally out of context and do not emerge from the adjustment as made while processing the return. The adjustment on account of belated payment to PF & ESI was made on the basis of report as made by the Tax Auditor in the Tax Audit Report. The CPC had disallowed late payment of employees’ contribution to various funds as referred in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act based on the defaults as reported by the Auditor. The details of these late payments was reported in Column 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report. This fact has not been disputed by the assessee. As per Explanation-1 to section 36(1)va) of the Act, the “due date” is the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee’s contribution to the employee’s account in the relevant funds under any Act, Rule, order or notification issued thereunder. Only after considering this provision, the ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 14 – Auditor had reported the delay in deposit of employees’ contribution under different funds. The Auditor had not certified any of the contentions as raised by the assessee in these grounds. Therefore, the Ground No.1 as taken by the assessee is devoid of any merit and is rejected. Further, Ground No.2 as taken by the assessee also doesn’t emanate from the adjustment as made by the CPC while processing the return. If the assessee is of the opinion that late deposit of employees’ contribution in PF & ESI is business expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Act, no-one prevented it to make such claim in the return of income. When no such claim was made in the return and neither the claim was certified by the Auditor, it could not have been allowed while processing the return. Therefore, both the grounds as taken by the assessee on merits of the adjustment, are rejected. Decision on legal grounds: 15. Having decided the grounds taken on merit in this appeal, we will now revert to the additional legal grounds taken by the assessee. The Revenue has objected to admission of these legal grounds by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC (Supra). The Apex Court had observed in that case as under: 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal [vide, e.g., C.I.T, v. Anand Prasad (Delhi), C.I.T. v. KaramchandPremchand P. Ltd. and C.I.T. v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. . Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 15 – the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. (emphasis supplied) 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in that case the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from facts as found by the authorities below. The Court further held that the question of law may be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Thus, it is clear from this decision that any question of law may be allowed to be raised only in order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. So far as the correct assessment of the tax liability in this case is concerned, the issue involved in this case is already settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra) and the grounds taken by the assessee on the merits of the case stand dismissed. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the submission of the Revenue that this is not a fit case where the legal grounds as raised by the assessee are relevant to consider the question of correct assessment of tax liability of the case. The only objective of the assessee behind raising these legal grounds is to obviate the correct tax liability. Nevertheless, since the issue of limitation and natural justice, while processing the return, has been raised in the legal grounds, we deem it proper to consider these grounds on merits as well. ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 16 – 17. The first legal ground taken by the assessee is that intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act issued by the CPC on 01.04.2021 was barred by limitation. A copy of the intimation has been brought on the record by the assessee. It is found that the intimation was dated 31st March 2021 with Document Identification Number (DIN) CPC./1920/A6/2014472753. It was mentioned in the intimation that “This communication is computer generated and may not contain signature. Where sent by email, this is signed with the digital signature of the Income Tax Department – CPC, which is obtained from a certifying authority under the Information Technology Act, 2000...” It is thus evident that the intimation under section 143(1), which was computer generated, did not contain any signature. This intimation was communicated to the assessee vide email dated 1 st April, 2021 and the email was digitally signed by the authorized officer of the CPC. Thus the signature dated 1 April 2021, on which great reliance has been placed by the assessee, was not the date of intimation but it was the date of communication of the intimation through email. From the DIN number and the date as appearing on the intimation, it is evident that the return of the assessee for AY 2019-20 was processed on 31 March 2021, which was within the limitation period. Further, this intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act can’t be considered as barred by limitation, even if, it was communicated on 1 st April, 2021, for the reasons as discussed in subsequent paras. ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 17 – 18. It is found that the time limit for processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act was extended by the CBDT from time-to-time. The Revenue has brought on record a copy of the order F. No.225/132/2023/ITA- II Dated 01.12.2023 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India whereby the time limit for processing the return for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 with refund claim was extended till 31.01.2024. The relevant para of the said letter is found to be as under: “3. The matter has been considered by the Board in view of pending grievances of taxpayers related to issue of refund for AYs 2018-19 2019-20 and 2020-21. To mitigate genuine hardship being faced by the taxpayers on this issue, the Board, by virtue of powers vested with it under section 119 of the Act hereby relaxes the time-frame prescribed in second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 143 and directs that all returns of income validly filed electronically with refund claims for AYs 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, for which date of sending intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143 of the Act has lapsed, subject to the exceptions mentioned in para 5 below, can be processed now with prior administrative approval of Pr.CCIT/CCIT concerned. The intimation of such processing under sub-section (1) of section 143 of the Act can be sent to the assessee concerned by 31.01.2024.” (emphasis supplied) 19. There is no dispute to the fact that return of the assessee for A.Y. 2019- 20 was made with a refund claim. Thus, the extended time limit till 31.01.2024 was squarely applicable for processing the return of the assessee for this year. The return of the assessee was, in fact, processed on 31.03.2021, which was within the original extended time limit. Considering the fact that the CBDT had subsequently extended the time limit for processing the return till 31.01.2024; the intimation dated 31.03.2021, even though it was digitally signed and communicated on 01.04.2021, cannot be held as barred by limitation. Therefore, the legal ground raised by the assessee in this regard is rejected. ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 18 – 20. The assessee has also taken a ground and contended that the exact type of adjustment, as stipulated in the clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 143(1) of the Act, was not mentioned in the intimation. There is no dispute to the fact that any incorrect claim, if it was apparent from any information in the return, was liable for adjustment while processing the return. From the intimation sheet as sent by the CPC, it is found that the adjustment of Rs.5,87,43,293/- was categorically indicated at Sl. No. 14 of the Annexure. In fact, this annexure contains details of all the claims made by the assessee in the return of income and the computation as made by the CPC under Section 143(1) of the Act and the variance if any, is also indicated in respect of each item. Thus, the nature of adjustment as made by the CPC was very much reflected in the intimation. Further, the nature/type of adjust was also mentioned in the prior intimation sent to the assessee by the CPC, which is reproduced later in the order. In view of these facts, the ground as taken by the assessee is dismissed. 21. The 3 rd legal ground is in respect of no prior intimation given to the assessee before making the adjustment. The assessee has submitted that no prior intimation was given either in electronic form or in writing before making the adjustment in the intimation and, therefore, the intimation was contrary to the 1 st Proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act. The Revenue has filed a paper book wherein a copy of “Dashboard: User Profile Administration” which contains details of action taken by the CPC on the return of the assessee for A.Y. 2019-20 is furnished. It is found therefrom that a communication was sent to the assessee vide Communication Reference Number CPC/1920/G22/2013189988 dated 30.12.2020 on the ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 19 – email ID accounts@checkmatservices.com with the remark “Pending response under Section 143(1)(a)”. When this matter was brought to the notice of the assessee in the course of hearing on 12 th July, 2024 the Ld. AR submitted that in the same “User Profile Administration”, there was mention of communication dated 19.02.2021 wherein it was mentioned that the “ITR filed is defective or incomplete”. The Ld. AR contended that the processing could not have been done until & unless the defect was rectified by the assessee. On this logic the Ld. AR submitted that no presumption can be drawn from the “User Profile Administration” and that the communication generated by CPC Bangalore on 30.12. 2020 was not transmitted to the assessee. Accordingly the Ld. AR made a request that the sheet “User Profile Administration” should not be used against the assessee. He also submitted that there was no mention of any proposed adjustment in the “User Profile Administration”. Further, the Ld. AR also pointed out that the communication dated 30.12.2020 was sent to email ID accounts@checkmatservices.com which was not legally valid as it was an unrelated email ID. He has drawn our attention to the fact that in the return of income for AY 2019-20, the email ID “contact@checkmateservices.com” was mentioned for transmitting all communications electronically. 22. We have carefully considered the evidences brought on record and the submission of the assessee. The “User Profile Administration” sheet contains only a summary of the action taken by the CPC on the return of the assessee for the A.Y.2019-20. Each action as mentioned in this sheet is to be backed by independent evidence. The Revenue has also filed a copy of the communication dated 30.12.2020 from which it is found that the assessee ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 20 – was communicated about the proposed adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act for A.Y. 2019-20. A copy of the said communication is reproduced below: ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 21 – ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 22 – 23. It is, thus, evident from the above fact that the assessee was given prior intimation for proposed adjustments before processing of the return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20, as stipulated in Proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act. The communication bears Document Identification No. (DIN) and the nature of adjustment was also explained in the Annexure in Part-A. While five of the proposed adjustments were in respect of incorrect claim under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, three adjustments were in respect of disallowance of expenditure indicated in audit report under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. In view of these facts, the contention of the assessee that no prior intimation of the adjustment was given is found to be incorrect ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 23 – and misleading. Though in the return for A.Y. 2019-20, the email address of the assessee was mentioned as “contact@checkmateservices.com”, the email ID on which this communication was sent i.e. “account@checkmateservices.com” also belonged to the assessee. In fact, the email ID “account@checkmateservices.com was the primary email ID as appearing on user profile of the assessee. Further, in the RTI application dated 27.12.2022 filed by the assessee with the AO as well as in Form No.- 36, email ID as mentioned therein was “account@checkmateservices.com”. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the email ID account “account@checkmateservices.com” on which this communication was sent belonged to the assessee and that the assessee was duly communicated about the adjustments before the processing of the return. In fact, the intimation dated 31.03.2021, which is subject matter of this appeal, was also sent on the same email ID “account@checkmateservices.com”. Therefore the contention of the assessee that the email accounts@checkmatservices.com was an unrelated email ID is not found correct. The CPC had all along made all communication with the assessee on this email ID only. Hence, the contention that the prior intimation sent on this email was not legally valid can’t be accepted. The intimation u/s 143(1) sent to the assessee on this email ID was well received by the assessee. So the earlier communication dated 30.12.2020 regarding proposed adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act before processing of the return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 sent on this email ID was legally valid intimation. In fact the assessee has not come clean before us and has tried to misrepresent the facts. The response to the crucial factual evidences filed by the Revenue has been given with a blinker on the eyes and in the garb of selective response and the legal arguments. In view ITA No. 69/Ahd/2023 [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT] A.Y. 2019-20 - 24 – of these facts, we do not find any merit in the grounds as taken by the assessee and the ground is dismissed. 24. In the result, appeal preferred b y the assessee is dismis sed. This Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16/07/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 16/07/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतआदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसारआदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप उपउप उप/सहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकारसहायक पंजीकार सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
