Case Law Details
Swiss Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 on 04.03.2022, declaring a total loss of ₹10,97,374. The return was processed under Section 143(1), and the total income was determined at ₹4,01,300 after an addition of ₹14,98,673 due to disallowance of delayed payment of employees’ contributions to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. An income tax refund was granted.
The assessee challenged the disallowance of employees’ PF and ESI contributions and also contended that the refund granted was lower than the refund claimed in the return of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee reiterated its objections regarding the PF/ESI disallowance and the refund amount. The Tribunal observed that the issue relating to delayed payment of employees’ contributions to PF and ESI stood concluded against the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. It further held that the divergent views referred to by the assessee would not apply in the present case. Accordingly, the ground challenging the disallowance of ₹14,98,673 was dismissed.
Regarding the refund claim, the Tribunal held that the matter required verification. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s claim and grant the refund if found admissible. This ground was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The general ground was not adjudicated. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This is an appeal filed against the order dated 18-112025 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT(A) Raipur for assessment year 2021-22.
2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal has grossly erred in points of law and facts.
2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal has erred in disallowing late payment of employees, contribution to PF and ESIC of Rs 14,98,673 in the intimation issued u/ s 143(1) of IT Act.
3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal has grossly erred in granting income tax refund of Rs 2,27,129 as against income tax refund claimed of Rs 3,28,129 as per return of income files.
4. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend all or any of the a appeal as may be advised from time to time.”
3. The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 04.03.2022, declaring a total loss of 10,97,374. The said return was processed, and the total income was determined at 4,01,300, after making an addition of 14,98,673 on account of disallowance of belated payment of employees’ contributions to PF and ESIC under section 36(1) (va) of the Act. An income tax refund of 2,46,430 was granted.
4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee
5. The ld. A.R. submitted that as regards ground no. 2, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing late payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund and ESI. As regards ground no. 3, the ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in granting income tax refund of Rs 2,27,129 as against income tax refund claimed of Rs 3,28,129 as per return of income files.
6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards ground no. 2, issue raised by the assessee is held as against assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 138 com 178 (SC). The position of Hon’ble High Court in respect of divergent view of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which was admitted by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Shree Raghukul Texprints Pvt. Ltd. and Sinhal Shreeomsingh Rawat as well as Utkranti Solutions Pvt. Ltd. will not be applicable in the present case. Hence, ground no. 2 is dismissed. As regards ground no. 3, if there is any refund as claimed by the assessee, the same needs verification and if the assessee is entitled, the same should be considered by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to do needful. Thus, ground no. 3 is party allowed for statistical purpose. Ground no. 1 is general in nature and not to be adjudicated.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14-05-2026
Author Bio
