ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No. 152 of 2005 G.A. No. 1409 of 2005 C.I.T. KOLKATA -XI Versus VISHWAMITRA KARYALAYA BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 11th September, 2014. Mr. Ramesh Chowdhury, Advocate Court : application, G.A. No. 1409 of 2005, has been filed for condoning delay of 44 days in preferring appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act from order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal E Bench, Kolkata dated 15th October, 2004 in ITA No. 407/Kol/2004 relating to assessment year 2002-2003. Heard Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for applicant. Perused application. Causes shown are sufficient. Therefore, delay of 44 days in preferring appeal is condoned. G.A. No. 1409 of 2005 is thus disposed of. appeal is now taken up for hearing. This is appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act preferred by appellant/revenue against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal E Bench, Kolkata dated 15th October, 2004 in ITA No. 407/Kol/2004 relating to assessment year 2002-2003 on following questions : 2 i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, learned Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating that direction on account of unpaid employees contribution is not admissible under section 36(i)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and that section 43B of said Act does not provide any exemption to such amount and in passing impugned order ? ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in directing for deduction on account of Employees contribution covered by Sec.2(24)(X) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in event of such payment having been made before due date for filing of return ? Mr. Chowdhury in course of his submission has referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered on 25th November, 2009 in Civil Appeal No. 7771 of 2009 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23851 of 2007: CIT vs- M/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. Perusing judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we find that issues are covered in favour of assessee and against revenue. Therefore, order of Tribunal calls for no interference. Hence, appeal is dismissed. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) km AR(CR) C.I.T. Kolkata -XI v. Vishwamitra Karyalaya