TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect to the first question of law. We answered the question in favour of the appellant/revenue and against the respondent/assessee. 3. Thus, we are left with the second question of law that was framed by us on 12.01.2023. 4. For the sake of convenience, the relevant parts of the order dated 12.01.2023 are set forth hereafter: "6. According to us, the following questions of law arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] misdirected itself in law in concluding that even if employees' contribution concerning provident fund and towards insurance was deposited beyond the date prescribed under the subject statute, it would be allowable as a deduction to the employer/assessee? (ii) Whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....versed. 9. Mr. Deepak Chopra, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, has drawn our attention to paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Tribunal, which adverts to the fact that the disallowance could not be made under Section 143(1) of the Act. 9.1 Furthermore, Mr. Chopra has also drawn our attention to paragraph 4.2.7 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s [in short, "CIT(A)"] order dated 25.03.2022, wherein, insofar as the respondent/assessee is concerned, the details of the deposits made towards provident fund and insurance are set forth. For the sake of convenience, the said table is extracted hereafter: "Particulars Amount (INR) Due Date Date of Deposition Remarks Employees' contribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law was always as declared in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd, and therefore, deduction could never have been claimed by the respondent/assessee while filing the return. Accordingly, the first question of law framed is allowed in favour of the appellant/revenue, and against the respondent/assessee. 11.1 However, that being said, what we need to consider, is the second submission advanced by Mr. Chopra in the given facts of the case i.e., whether the deposit of Rs. 1,56,12,404/- on 16.08.2018 was within time, given the fact that the due date fell on 15.08.2018. This issue relates to the second question of law, as framed hereinabove. 12. Accordingly, issue notice confined to the second question of law. 12.1 Mr. Chopra accepts notice on beha....