2022 (4) TMI 330 - AT - Income Tax

Assessees' Appeals Allowed for Statistical Reasons, Remitted to Commissioner pending Supreme Court Decision.

The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remitted back to the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax ... Non deposited Employees Provident Fund (EPF) with the prescribed authority within stipulated time - HELD THAT:- As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Company [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the issue had already been decided by the Hon'ble Court against the assessee - we note that jurisdiction ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Unicorn Remedies Pvt. Ltd [2019 (1) TMI 1969 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein the similar issue has been remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter after taking into account the outcome of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:Appeals against separate orders under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Confirmation of adjustments by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre; Remitting the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A); Dispute over Employees Provident Fund (EPF) deposit; Interpretation of judgments by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court; Pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court; Decision to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A).Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to four appeals filed by different assessees against separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising from assessment orders under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the assessee was that the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer (Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru) did not fall within the scope of section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act, and thus should be deleted.2. The Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue argued that the issue was decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case concerning the non-deposit of Employees Provident Fund (EPF) within the prescribed time. The judgment cited highlighted the importance of timely deposit of EPF contributions and disallowed deductions for amounts not deposited in the fund account by the due date.3. The Tribunal noted that while the issue was decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, a similar matter in a different case was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) by the ITAT, Ahmedabad, to consider the outcome of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's decision and then proceed accordingly.4. The judgment also referenced a pending appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, indicating the possibility of benefiting from the Supreme Court's judgment if it reverses the High Court's decision. The Tribunal, considering the legal complexities and pending matters, allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Ld. CIT(A) in light of the Supreme Court's decision when available.5. Ultimately, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed for statistical purposes, and the Registry was directed to place a copy of the order in all relevant case files. The decision was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the adherence to procedural rules.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant legal precedents, and the Tribunal's decision to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) pending the Supreme Court's judgment.