TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. AO. We find that this aspect of the issue was not decided in the decision of CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 [ 2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] - AR placed reliance on the decision of Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Kanoi Paper Industries Ltd vs ACIT 2001 (5) TMI 139 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E] where this aspect of the issue was considered. The ld. DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that the issue of employees contribution to PF/ ESI had already been decided in favour of the revenue by the recent decision of Hon ble Supreme Court referred supra. Considering the tabulation submitted by the assessee for each of the month in which salary was actually disbursed, we deem it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IN Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035934361(1), dated 27/09/2021 against the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO ) u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on 17/10/2019 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal before us by 374 days. The assessee had filed condonation petition adducing the reason for the delay in filing of appeal. No serious objections were made by the ld. DR before us on the point of delay. Considering the reason adduced in the condonation petition, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are inclined to condone the delay and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espective PF / ESI Acts. However, the ld. AR made arguments before us on Additional Ground B referred supra. We find that this additional ground is a legal issue and hence they are admitted for adjudication. We find that the ld. AR before us placed a chart separately for PF and ESI stating that the addition to be made would be only Rs 3,33,937/- as against Rs 53,89,319/-, if the month in which salary was actually disbursed is taken into account by the ld. AO. We find that this aspect of the issue was not decided in the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court referred supra. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Calcutta Tribunal in the case of Kanoi Paper Industries Ltd vs ACIT reported in 75 TTJ 448 dated 28.5.2001 where this aspect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
