THE NAGAUR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WAD-1, NAGAUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH :DB
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH :DB (VIRTUAL HEARING AT NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.65/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19
The Nagaur Central ITO, Ward-1, Nagaur Cooperative Bank Ltd., 1, NCCB Bank, Gandhi Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ACT, Chowk, Nagaur ITO, National e-Asessment PIN: 341001 Centre, Delhi. (PAN:AAAAT7574R) (Appellant) (Respondent)
Present for: Appellant by : N O N E Respondent by : Shri Rajiv Mohan, JCIT-DR
Date of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2023
O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of learned
Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) National Faceless Appeal
Centre(NFAC), Delhi - Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10023831 dated
17.03.2022 against the order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 03.02.2021 passed by
2 ITA No.65/Jodh/2022 The Nagaur Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Nagaur- AY: 2018-19 the AO, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (NeAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.
When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on 2.
behalf of the assessee to represent the case. However, a letter dated
12.09.2023 on behalf of the assessee has been filed in the Registry
seeking adjournment on the ground that the learned counsel is pre-
occupied , therefore, he is unable to attend the hearing. The ground
seeking adjournment is unsatisfactory and the said application is
declined.
Since the sole issue in the present appeal is in respect of
disallowance made towards contribution to provident fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI) by the employees which were deposited after the due date prescribed under the respective Acts, the issue being covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), we dispose of this appeal, ex parte qua the assessee.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 01.10.2018 reporting total income at Rs.1,74,26,030. Assessee is engaged is District Co-operative Central Bank, Administered by Registrar
3 ITA No.65/Jodh/2022 The Nagaur Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Nagaur- AY: 2018-19
of Co-operative Society where funding is provided by NABARD for
advancement of agricultural sector to the farmers. Assessment under
Section 143(3) was completed whereby a disallowance of Rs.13,75,021
was made on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution
towards PF and ESI. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the
learned Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the disallowance so
made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
On the aforesaid issue relating to disallowance in respect of delay
in deposit of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the issue is
squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022)
143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s
36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards
employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within
the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the
Income-tax Act,1961.” Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that by virtue of
section 2 (24) (x) of the Act, the amounts received or deducted by an
employer u/s 36(1)(va), it retains its character as an income (albeit
deemed) by virtue of section 2 (24)(x) , unless the condition stipulated by
Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e. depositing such amount
received of deducted from the employee on or before the due date. It is
further held that there is a marked distinction between the nature and
4 ITA No.65/Jodh/2022 The Nagaur Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Nagaur- AY: 2018-19
character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid out of
its income, whereas, the second is deemed an income, by definition,
since it is the deduction from the employee's income and held in trust by
the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus held that the conditions
of section 43B prescribing the due date as the date of filing of return of
income in case the employers' contribution towards ESI/PF would not be
applicable in case the employees' contribution as provided u/s 36(1)(va)
of the Act and that the due date in respect of deposit of employees'
contribution would be such as prescribed u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act.
In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is hereby dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 12.09.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Girish Agrawal) Vice-President Accountant Member Dated: 12 September, 2023 *Mohan Lal*
