ACME INDUSTRIES,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. held that Section 43B does not apply to employee contributions to PF/ESI, and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) applies. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals concerned additions made for late deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI. The CIT(A) had upheld these additions, holding that the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were applicable and that the payments were not covered under Section 43B.
What were the issues?
The key issue was whether the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the due date were applicable, and if such late payments were deductible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25-11-2021& 01-10-2021 for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively raising therein following grounds of appeal.
ACME INDUSTRIES VS ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA – A.Y. 2018-19 (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred in violating the principles of faceless appeal as announced for justice of honest taxpayers to avoid litigation as created unnecessary by AO.
(2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act. (3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in consciously and deliberately highly disregarding the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs.3,41,040/- in respect of employees contribution to ESI & PF. (5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that amendment in Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable in the case of assessee. (6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in recording irrelevant finding in the order and thereby sustaining arbitrary addition in a hypothetical way by putting the assessee to erroneous harassment and inconvenience. – A.Y. 2019-20 (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred in violating the principles of faceless appeal as announced for justice of honest taxpayers to avoid litigation as created unnecessary by AO.
(2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of order passed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act. (3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in consciously and deliberately highly disregarding the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining addition of ACME INDUSTRIES VS ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA Rs.2,26,654/- in respect of employees contribution to ESI & PF. (5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that amendment in Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable in the case of assessee. (6) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in recording irrelevant finding in the order and thereby sustaining arbitrary addition in a hypothetical way by putting the assessee to erroneous harassment and inconvenience. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 36 days and 91 days in filing the above mentioned appeals respectively by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that because of COVID-19 pandemic, the appeal could not be filed in time. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10-01-2022 excluded the period starting from March 15, 2020 till Feb. 28, 2022 for the purposes of limitation. Hence, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay for which the ld. DR did not raise any objection. In this view of the matter, the delay is condoned. 3.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 for adjudication. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed the ITR on 25-09-2018 declaring total income at Rs.27,75,370/-. Order u/s 143(1) was passed on 16-10-2019 at assessed income of Rs.30,12,403/- and raised demand of Rs.91,910/-. The assessee filed the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which was rejected by the ACIT, Circle-Bhilwara vide his order
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jai Ram Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Maa Baglamukhi Construction Thr Propriter Aryan Dhingra vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026