, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 244/Ind/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Daulat Ram Engineering ADIT, CPC Services Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No.10/2 NH-12, Village Simarai, Obaidullaganj, बनाम/

Vs.

Mandideep, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: AABCD3596Q Assessee by Shri Vijay Bansal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 25.04.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment dated 07.05.2020 passed by learned ADIT, CPC, Bangalore [“AO”] u/s 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2019-20, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred and not justified in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 38,70,983/ - u/ s 43B of the IT Act and therefore be kindly allowed.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred and not justified in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 51,07,903/ - u/ s 36(1)(va) and hence be kindly allowed.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the said disallowance do not fall under the purview of 143(1) of the IT Actand therefore be allowed.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, that the levy of interest u/ s 234A, 234B and 234C is unlawful and, therefore, the said levy be kindly deleted.”

Ground No. 1 and 2:

2. In these grounds, the assessee challenges the disallowances of Rs. 38,70,983/- (+) Rs. 51,07,903/- made by AO on account of employees’ contributions received by assessee towards Provident Fund / Employees State Insurance Fund (PF/ESI) by way of deduction from salaries but not paid to relevant funds upto the due dates prescribed under PF/ESI laws.

3. Ld. AR instantly agrees that this issue stands decided against assessee in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. In view of such a confession, Ground No. 1 and 2 do not have any merit and are dismissed.

Ground No. 3:

4. This is a legal ground in which the assessee claims that the AO had no authority to make the impugned disallowances in the intimation passed u/s 143(1).

5. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the issue raised in this ground has already been decided by Hon’ble High Courts in following cases against assessee and in favour of revenue:

(i) Rohan Korgaonkar Vs. DCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 321 (Bombay HC):

“2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) for the assessment year 2018-

2019.

3. The ITAT, in this case, has noted that the Assessee failed to deposit contributions to ESI and PF in the employees' accounts for the relevant assessment year before the due date under the PF/ESI Acts. However, such contributions were deposited before the Assessee filed returns under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. The ITAT relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v.CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 / [2023] 290 Taxman 19 / 448 ITR 518 (SC) held that based upon such delayed deposits, noadjustments ordeductions could be claimed.

4. In Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the conflic