Allowing the appeal, that on the date of issuance, i.e., on December 16, 2021, of the intimation order under section 143(1)(a) by the Assessing Officer, the issue as to whether the delayed deposit of employees’ share of contributions towards Employees’ State Insurance and Employees’ Provident Fund, though deposited by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1), could be held as the income of the assessee under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) or not or whether it was subject to the provisions contained in section 43B, was highly debatable, which was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) and subsequently, it was resolved by the Supreme Court by the judgment dated October 12, 2022. The assessee in its audit report had only furnished the details of delayed deposits and had not shown them as disallowances. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had committed a legal error in processing the return of the assessee under section 143(1)(a). The Assessing Officer should not have made the assessment under the provisions contained in section 143(1)(a), instead should have made the assessment under the provisions of section 143(3) of the Act. Order of Tribunal set aside. The Revenue to proceed in accordance with law. (AY. 2020-21)