TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur. Since these appeals contained common facts and grounds of appeals; therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. We are tasked to decide following issues raised vide three grounds in these appeals: ITA No.1040/Del/2024 (AY 2018-19): i. Dismissal of appeal due to non-maintainability of belated appeal (Delay was not condoned.) ii. Disallowance of Rs. 73,51,882/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the 'Act') on account of late deposit of employees' contribution to ESI & EPF ITA No. 1041/Del/2024 (AY 2019-20): i. Disallowance of Rs. 22,55,384/- under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee side attended in last three hearings. Initially, the assessee's Representative sought adjournment twice. We therefore, took a call to proceed with these cases. Therefore, we heard the Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter, the 'Sr. DR'). 5. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the impugned orders were well reasoned; therefore, these appeals deserved dismissal. It was contended that the disallowances under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of employees' contribution to ESI & EPF made in each AY were squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. 448 ITR 518. Further, it was also submitted that the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) had given categorical finding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of non-payment of GST within the due date for filing ITR under section 139(1) of the Act. The relevant part of the decision of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. reads as under: "5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the details filed by the assessee as well as the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Admittedly, there is a liability of IGST payable at the end and the same has not been paid up to the due date in filing the return of income. The tax audit report is dated 30.11.2019 and also the due date of fling of return is also 30.11.2019 and in the tax audit report at column 26(i)(B)(b) at Sl. No. 29 states that IGST on import of goods at Rs. 1,25,65,813/- has not been paid before the date of audit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des that the valuation of purchase and sale of goods or services and of inventory shall be adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring the goods or services to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation. For the purpose of accounting this clause provides that in the P&L Account where there is element of opening stock, purchase, sales and closing stock the value of all these items should include the tax, duty, cess or fee levied thereon. In other words, the gross turnover includes the VAT/IGST/any other service tax liability etc. charged and similarly on the debit side i.e. the purchases, taxes paid should be added. So far a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndant. Though the assessee has filed a calculation that even after routing the GST through P&L Account there is no impact but then such calculation itself placed before us becomes questionable as to how can that is a GST liability outstanding at the yearend in the Balance Sheet. 10. We have gone through the details filed by the assessee and do not find them in order because the total of GST component in the opening stock and purchase of raw material is exactly same i.e. Rs. 7,53,20,110/- to that of the GST component in consumption of raw material and closing stock. There has been no impact on the P&L Account because assessee has not mentioned the details of GST component in the sales figure and has merely added the opening stock an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal is not maintainable on the reasoning that the delay in filing the appeal is not satisfactorily explained. We have perused the impugned order and are of the considered view that the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) is justified in deciding the appeal on merit after holding the appeal as non-maintainable and viceversa. Keeping in view the facts in entirety, it is hereby held that the justification offered by the assessee for filing belated appeal before the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) is satisfactory and thus, the finding of the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) that the appeal of the AY 2018-19 (ITA No. 1040/Del/2024) nonmaintainable is reversed. 8. We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR at length and have perused the material available on record. We are of the considered vi....