GEEKAY FACILITY MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

A.Y. 2018-19, is filed by the assessee recalled by the order dated 3rd November, 2023 in MA No.250/Mum/2023, which was earlier disposed off on 29th July, 2022, consequent to the MA filed by the Revenue.

Now, only issue remains in this appeal is that whether the employees’ contribution towards provident fund, employees state insurance scheme and labor welfare fund paid beyond the due dates specified in the respective Act, are disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the employees contribution paid beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Act of provident Fund and ESIC cannot be allowed in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12- 10-2022. 07. We have carefully heard the rival contentions, we find that the claim of the assessee is that out of the employees contribution of ESIC of ₹3,94,983/-, ₹3,07,550/- has been paid before the due date prescribed under the respective Act. On verification of such dates, we find that the assessee has taken the due dates from the date of payment of salaries and wages as per bank statement. It is apparent that this submission is directly covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the due dates should be taken of the respective Act from the date of payment of wages is not

Therefore there is no infirmity in the disallowance made by the ld AO . Same is also in conformity with the decision of Honourable Supreme court.

In view of the decision, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) confirming the disallowance of ₹30,93,567/- under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 224(X) of the Act.

In the result, all the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.