9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,78,66,252/- on account of late remittance of employees' contribution to P.P. & E.S.LC. u/s. 36(l)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of the Act made by the A.O., relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.)., It is submitted with due respect to the above decision that subsequently the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka) has taken a view in favor of the assessee while disagreeing with the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. That apart, since the SLP filed against the said decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assesse employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part assessee-employer's income, thus, said clause would not absolve assesseeemployer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. Again the Supreme Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible even though he deposits same before due date under section 43B of the Act. Again the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2020] 115 taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat) held that where assessee had not deposited employees' contributions towards PF and ESI amounting Rs. 15.20 lakhs within prescribed period in law and Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) made addition of aforesaid amount to income of assessee, impugned addition made to income of assessee was justified. 5. In view of the above observations, respectfully following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd supra and Harrisons Malayalam Ltd supra, we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
