2023 (3) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t) dated 13/11/2019 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-CPC (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made on account of employee's contribution of Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Since the issue is already covered in favour of the Revenue by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd vs CIT reported in 448 ITR 518, we proceed to dispose of this appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record. It is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer's obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. In the case of these liabilities, what constitutes the due date is defined by the statute. Nevertheless, the assessees are given some leeway in that as long as deposits are made beyond t....