AROMA AROMATICS AND FLAVOURS, DELHI V. CIT(A) NFAC, DELHI

MA 6/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Aroma Aromatics and Flavours, the assessee, who filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of mistakes in a previous Tribunal order concerning the disallowance due to late payment of PF and ESI dues for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee argued that several case laws and facets of the issue were not considered in the original Tribunal decision. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the Tribunal had relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment, which was binding and addressed the issue comprehensively. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the assessee was essentially seeking a review, which is not allowed under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121775 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), M/s Reliance Telecom Limited (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.06/Del/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.1646/DEL/2021) [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Aroma Aromatics and Flavours, A-127, Okhla Industrial Area Phase II, Deli-110020 Vs CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi PAN-AADFA2744G Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Pratap Gupta, CA Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee seeks rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1646/Del/2021 for Assessment Year 2018-19 vide order dated 30.11.2022. 2. The issue in dispute was the disallowance due to late payment of PF and ESI dues. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that several case laws were referred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee which have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Further, it is the plea that the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued various facets of the issue which have not been dealt with by the Tribunal. 2 MA No.06/Del/2023 3. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there is no mistake apparent from the record in this case. This Tribunal has relied upon the latest judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue. That the assessee is seeking a review in the garb of rectification. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the Tribunal in the said case has referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) and concluded as under:- “11. A reading of the aforesaid judgment makes it amply clear that Hon’ble Apex Court has expounded that the employees’ contribution retains its character as income (albeit deemed) by virtue of section 2(24)(x) unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e. depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. Elaborating upon the same, further Hon’ble Apex Court had held that employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction form the employees’ income and held in trust by the employer. Hence, the above adjustment as done by the CPC under section 143(1)(iv) and has now the sanction of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The ld. Counsel of the assessee’s thrust that the issue is debatable is not at all sustainable inasmuch as it is not relevant as per the extant provision of law contained in section 143 (1). Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision is law of the land and clarifies the matter from the very beginning itself. In this view of the matter, in our considered view, there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A). Hence, we uphold the same.” 5. Now, we agree that the ld. Counsel for the assessee is seeking review of the above said order not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, the review sought by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is not permissible on the touchstone in the decision of the Hon’ble 3 MA No.06/Del/2023 Supreme Court in the case of M/s Reliance Telecom Limited (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41(SC). Accordingly, in the background of the said discussion and the precedent, this Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 th June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; Dated: 13.06.2023. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜf{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi