MARUDHAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD V. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

MA 97/AHD/2024

AI Insights

Marudhar Industries Ltd. filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had dismissed their appeal concerning the late payment of employee's contributions to Provident Fund and ESIC. The Tribunal's original decision was based on a precedent from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which supported the Revenue's stance. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had overlooked a crucial fact regarding the applicability of section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, which they claimed did not permit such an adjustment. However, the Tribunal found no mistake in its earlier order and dismissed the application, citing the absence of any stay order from the High Court and the lack of Form No. 8 under section 158A, which would have avoided repetitive appeals in this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834487 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. GSRTC, Shree Raghukul Texprints Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Vinodkumar Mittal Vs. CPC, Bangalore
• Laws Referred To: EPF, ESI & Welfare Funds Acts, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member Marudhar Industries Limited 610-611, Phase-IV, GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad Gujarat-382445 PAN: AABCM4070C (Appellant) Vs The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore Present Jurisdiction The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Prakash D Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 03-02-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 06-10-2023 in ITA No. 232/Ahd/2023 passed by this Tribunal with the following prayer: “(b) That the above referred matter came for hearing before the Hon'ble Waseem Ahmed (AM) & Ms. Madhumita Roy (JM) on 04.10.2023 and the case matter decided against us. The conclusion derived by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the appellate order dated 06.10.2023 is as under:- M.A. No: 97/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No: 232/Ahd/2023) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 97/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 232/Ahd/2023) A.Y. 2017-18 Marudhar Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2 \"2. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 3. The issue involving in this particular case is relating to addition of employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC of Rs. 22,58,236/- which was paid admittedly after the due date stipulated in the relevant fund under EPF, ESI & Welfare Funds Acts. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 5. The issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC, reported in 366 ITR 170 against the assessee. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, respectfully relying upon the same, dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee as same is found to be devoid of any merit.\" Copy of the order is enclosed herewith as Annexure 1 for reference of your goodself. 3. The case for the hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT was represented by CA Prakash D. Shah and written submission was filed and wherein it was stated that impugned order has been passed under section 143(1) of the Act and in the said order no such adjustment is permitted, and the said vital fact seems to have been forgotten by the Hon'ble Members. It is further worth note that on the same issue, in the other cases, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has admitted the question of law and therefore it is a mistake in the order and in the interest of Justice, a prayer is made to your honor to recall the order and decide the appeal by considering the said fact and legal position after giving another opportunity of hearing.” 2. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us the question of law admitted by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Raghukul Texprints Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Vinodkumar Mittal Vs. CPC, Bangalore in Tax Appeal No. 331 of 2023 dated 03-07-2023 wherein the following question of law admitted by the Hon’ble High Court: Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 97/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 232/Ahd/2023) A.Y. 2017-18 Marudhar Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 3 \"(1) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the issue, learned Tribunal is right in confirming disallowance of Rs.28,95,179/- on account of debatable and contentions issue prima as facie adjustment u/S.143(1)(a) of the Act; (2) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the issue, learned Tribunal is right in confirming disallowance of Rs.28,95,179/-on account of delay in payment of employees' PF and ESIC contribution even when at the relevant time different High Courts have given contradictory judgments;\" 3. The assessee also stated that to avoid repetitive appeals, Form No. 8 under section 158A of the Act was filed by the assessee, therefore requested to recall the order passed by this Tribunal. 4. Ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that there is no mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore the M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The operative portion of the order passed by this Tribunal is as follows: “3. The issue involving in this particular case is relating to addition of employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC of Rs.22,58,236/- which was paid admittedly after the due date stipulated in the relevant fund under EPF, ESI & Welfare Funds Acts. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 5. The issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC, reported in 366 ITR 170 against the assessee. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, respectfully relying upon the same, dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee as same is found to be devoid of any merit.” Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 97/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 232/Ahd/2023) A.Y. 2017-18 Marudhar Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 4 5.1. We do not find any mistake in the order passed by this Tribunal which has followed the final judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC which is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 6. The assessee is now making new attempt of stating that admission of question of law by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The Ld. Counsel also could not produce before us any Stay order by the Hon’ble High Court TA No. 331 of 2023 staying the operation of the Tribunal order. In the absence of the same, the order passed by this Tribunal does not require any interference. Further Form No. 8 under section 158A is applicable only in assessee’s own case to avoid repetitive appeals and not that of any other assessee’s case. In our records, we do not find any such Form No. 8 filed by the assessee. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee in this Miscellaneous Application are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03-02-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 03/02/2026 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Or der Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 97/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 232/Ahd/2023) A.Y. 2017-18 Marudhar Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 5 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "