, , 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. 245/Ind/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Jagdish Kumar Gulia, ITO, 3(1)

BP-76 Lake Pearl Garden, Bhopal Airport Road, बनाम/

Vs.

Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: ACKPG4364M Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment dated 29.04.2019 passed by learned ADIT, CPC, Bangalore [“AO”] u/s 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs.

11,52,220/-. The AO processed assessee’s return through intimation dated 29.04.2019 u/s 143(1) determining total income at Rs. 21,72,100/-, after making an upward adjustment of Rs. 10,19,880/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) on account of disallowance of employee’s contribution 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. Aggrieved by such adjustment, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). During first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by AO following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under:

“On the facts and the circumstances ofthe case:-

1. The Ld. CPC was not justified in passing the order, which is bad-in- law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, liable to be annulled.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances ofthe case, liable to be annulled.

3. The Ld CIT(A) was not justified in doing adjustment u/ s. 143(1) in respect of PF and ESIC, whereas, such disallowance, in any case, could nothave been done u/ s. 143(1).

4. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.10,19,880/ - u/ s. 36(1) (va) of the Act on account of delayed payment of PF and ESIC without considering the facts &

circumstances ofthe case.

5. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds ofappeal.” Ground No. 1 and 2:

4. Ld. AR for assessee prayed that the assessee is not pressing these grounds, hence they may be dismissed. Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection against prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as non-pressed.

Ground No. 3:

5. 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).

6. 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 not