COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. NIPSO POLYFABRIKS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the appeal was admitted on three questions of law, learned counsel for the parties agree that questions No. 2 and 3 already stand answered against the revenue by the judgment delivered by this Court in ITA No. 36 of 2007, titled H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax, 2010 328 ITR 508, and, therefore, the only question of law which survives for decision is as follows:

(2.) To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it would be pertinent to mention that for the assessment year 200102, the respondentassessee declared an income of Rs. 3,16,591/. During proceedings under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was noticed that an amount of Rs. 6,23,028/, which had been collected by the assessee from its employees as their contribution towards their contribution, had not been deposited in the ESI and Provident Fund accounts by the due dates prescribed under the Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund Acts. A sum of Rs. 8,15,196/ being the employer's contribution towards Provident Fund was also not deposited by the due date under the Provident Fund Act.

(3.) As far as the contribution of the assesseeemployer is concerned, in view of the judgment rendered by us in ITA No. 36 of 2007, titled M/s. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax following the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Alom Extrusions Ltd., 2009 319 ITR 306, it was fairly conceded by Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel appearing for the revenue, that that portion of the dispute is no longer res integra and has to be decided against the revenue.