9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29.11.2024 passed under Section 250/143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] to give effect to the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. 2. The petitioner had filed its return of income for the assessment year [AY] 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 2,26,85,350/-. The petitioner's return of income was picked up for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 13.08.2018. The said proceedings culminated in the Assessing Officer [AO] passing an assessment order dated 21.12.2019 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. 3. The controversy centres around the addition of Rs. 5,87,096/- made by the AO on account of disallowance due to delay in depositing the Empl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyer's contribution towards ESI/PF and such welfare funds for employee are covered under the amendment to Sec. 43B of the I.T. Act. 6.4 Following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Vinay Cement 213 CTR 263, the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in CIT vs. AIMIL Limited [2010] 321 ITR 508 has held that - "We may only add that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rystal clear that the CIT(A) had allowed the petitioner's appeal in regard to disallowance of Rs. 5,87,096/- towards EPF contribution. 6. After the said appellate order, the AO was required to recompute the demand and pass an order in compliance of the aforementioned appellate order. However, under the guise of giving effect to the said order, the AO has passed the impugned order holding that no change in the assessment is required in view of the subsequent judgment dated 12.10.2022 of the Supreme Court in M/s Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I: Civil Appeal No. 2833/2016. 7. We consider it apposite to set out the impugned order: "ORDER U/S 250/143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 1.0 The assessment in this case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a different view in another case. 9. It is apparent that the AO had no jurisdiction to disregard the appellate order in the manner as he had done. The jurisdiction of the AO is limited to give effect to the CIT(A) appellate order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the CIT(A). In the event the Revenue finds that the order passed by the CIT(A) is not acceptable, the Revenue is required to avail its remedy of an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT]. It would be debilitating to the Rule of law, if the AO is permitted to sit as an appellate authority over the decision rendered by the appellate authority and review the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) instead of giving effect to it. 10. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
