JAI PRAKASH RAMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8/JPR/2022Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 November 2022AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. held that Section 43B does not apply to employee's PF/ESI contributions and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The appeals concerned additions made by the AO on account of late deposit of employees' contribution towards PF and ESI, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee had deposited these contributions before the due date of filing the return.

What were the issues?

Whether late deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is deductible when deposited before the due date of filing the return, considering the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V (JCIT-DR)

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 8/Jodh/22
ITA No. 56/Jodh/21

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

The above mentioned appeals are filed by different assessee’s against three different orders of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10-11-2021, 1-07-2021 and 16-09-2022 for the assessment year 2018-19, 2018-19 and 2020-21 respectively confirming the addition of Rs.1,97,803/- Rs.53,59,210/- and Rs.76,790/- u/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards PF and ESI Act.

1.

None appeared on behalf of the above assessee’s on the issue in question when the case was called out for hearing.

2.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi.

3.

After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noticed that the AO made the addition of Rs.1,97,803/- Rs.53,59,210/- and Rs.76,790/- u/s 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards PF and ESI Act by the above mentioned assessee’s, holding it deemed income and subjected to tax in the hands of the employer which in first appeal was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) by holding that the said late payments are not covered under section 43B of the Act and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed this ground of the respective assessee’s. However, it is noted that the assessee has deposited employees contribution towards PF & ESI before due date of filing of return. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT-1, 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employee’s contribution to PF/ESI and the due date specified u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), the issue in these appeals being similar in nature are remanded back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is directed to submit the necessary details/documents concerning the issue in question before the ld. CIT(A) in order to square up the case. Further, the assessee is also at liberty to take any other plea before the ld. CIT(A), if so advised. Thus these appeals of above mentioned assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →