“Whether On The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case And In Law,The Tribunal Was Justified In Law To Delete The Addition On v. Thus Following The Decision Of The Hon’ble Supreme Court Theappeal Is Allowed And The Order Passed By The Tribunal Is Set Asideand The Substantial Question Of L

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/217/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATAVSM/S GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS & ENGINEERS LIMITEDKOLKATA BEFORE: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM ANDThe HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 16 OCTOBER, 2023. Appearance:Ms. Smita Das De, Adv...for appellantMs. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.Mr. Debashis Mitra, Adv.….for respondent The Court :- We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned Advocateappearing for the appellant and Ms. Swapna Das, Mr. Siddhartha Das,learned Advocates appearing for the respondent. There is a delay of 565 days in filing the appeal. We aresatisfied with the explanation offered and accordingly the delay infiling the appeal is condoned. The application for condonation of delayis allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 07.09.2021passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata inITAT No. 50/Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therespondent has raised the following substantial question of law :- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,the Tribunal was justified in law to delete the addition on account of employees contribution towards ProvidentFund amounting to Rs.3,30,13,514/- and ESI amounting toRs.12,99,775/- after due date without considering the decisionsof the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of UnifacManagement Service (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT (2018) 409ITR 225, decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case ofM/s. Merchem Limited reported in 378 ITR 443 and the decisionof the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s. Ghatge PatilTransport Limited reported in 368 ITR 749 and also violatingthe provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” The substantial question of law which has been raised issquarely covered in favour of the appellant/department in the light ofthe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CheckmateServices Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 reported in(2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 451. Thus following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court theappeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set asideand the substantial question of law is answered in favour of theappellate department. Consequently, the connected applications stand closed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)