ISHANT ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-51(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2694/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 March 2023AY 2020-213 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that employee contributions to provident fund and ESI paid beyond the due date must be added back to the assessee's income. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a proprietorship firm, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer added back the aggregate amount of belated deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC funds. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether belated deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Sharma, AR
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.03.2023

(PAN : BHGPA2518B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Manoj Sharma, AR REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2023 Date of Order : 10.03.2023 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 23.09.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee read as under :-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has grossly erred is confirming a total addition of Rs.23,73,348/- u/s 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has grossly erred is confirming a demand of Rs.6,78,307/- u/s 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) has grossly erred is confirming a demand of

4. The Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) is not justified in law and fact and circumstances of the cases in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on 07.01.2022.”

3.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietorship firm engaged in business of fabrication of shoes on job work basis. The assessee had e-filed its return of income on 13.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.4,25,710/-. Order u/s 143(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was passed on 30.11.2021 and the same was served on the assessee on the same day, adding back the aggregate amount of belated deposit of employees' contribution of PF and ESIC Funds.

4.

Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) elaborately considered the issue and confirmed the AO’s action.

5.

Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before me. The assessee has moved adjournment petition stating that the authorized representative who has to argue the matter is not well. However, ld. AR was very much present in the court and in these circumstances, this adjournment petition is rejected.

6.

Upon careful consideration, I note that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 143 relevant Act then the same has to be added back in the income of the assessee. Accordingly, following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we confirm the orders of the authorities below.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of March, 2023.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →