TaxTMI Login
TaxTMI 
Login
Loading...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 33 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 33 Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of 33 Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 33 Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All TMI Notes
of 33 Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All TMI Notes
Note
Bookmark
Share
Reported as:
2024 (4) TMI 1006 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
This article analyzes a judgement by the High Court (HC) concerning two key issues: (1) the delay of 690 days in filing an appeal before the HC due to procedural issues in the new faceless appeal scheme, and (2) the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction of delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards ESI/PF u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant's counsel, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, submitted the following arguments:
The respondent's counsel, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, submitted that the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was just and proper, warranting no interference.
The Court observed that the reason given by the assessee firm regarding the inordinate delay in filing the appeal did not inspire confidence and revealed a lackadaisical conduct on the part of the partners. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in STATE OF WEST BENGAL Versus ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY & ORS. - 1971 (12) TMI 106 - Supreme Court and Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal Versus Rewa Coalfields Ltd - 1961 (5) TMI 54 - Supreme Court, which held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction, but the action should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. In this case, the Court found that the assessee was acting in defiance of the law, and there was no reason to condone the substantial delay of 690 days.
Regarding the issue of claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on delayed payment of employees' share of contribution towards ESI/PF, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 - 2022 (10) TMI 617 - Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had held that the non-obstante clause in Section 43B would not dilute or override the employer's obligation to deposit the amounts retained or deducted from the employee's income unless the condition of depositing it on or before the due date is satisfied. The Court found that the present appeal filed by the appellant was devoid of merits and barred by limitation u/s 253 of the Act.
The Court analyzed the facts, circumstances, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-1. It concluded that the present appeal filed by the appellant was not only devoid of merits but also barred by limitation as provided u/s 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court upheld the ITAT's decision to dismiss the assessee's appeal.
The Court discussed the doctrine of "sufficient cause" and the principles governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals, as laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgements.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the ITAT's decision. The Court found that the delay of 690 days in filing the appeal was not justified, as the reason given by the assessee firm did not inspire confidence and revealed a lackadaisical conduct on the part of the partners. Regarding the issue of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Court followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, which held that the non-obstante clause in Section 43B would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. The Court concluded that the present appeal was devoid of merits and barred by limitation u/s 253 of the Act.
Full Text:
