Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising the sole ground reproduced as under:
The learned CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in confirming the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the act of Rs.35,62,677/- being late deposit of Employees share towards Provident Fund & ESI Contribution Employees share towards Provident Fund & ESI Contribution Employees share towards Provident Fund & ESI Contribution without appreciating that the amounts had been deposited hout appreciating that the amounts had been deposited hout appreciating that the amounts had been deposited before the due date of filing the tax return. before the due date of filing the tax return.
The material facts for adjudication of the controversy The material facts for adjudication of the controversy The material facts for adjudication of the controversy in brief are that while processing the return of income filed by the assessee are that while processing the return of income filed by the assessee are that while processing the return of income filed by the assessee u/s 143(1) of the In u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), the Central Processing Centre (CPC) Central Processing Centre (CPC) made adjustment for made adjustment for the claim of the assessee of employee the assessee of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI s contribution to PF/ESI amounting to Rs.35,62,677/- to the returned income to the returned income on the ground that same on the ground that same was deposited after t was deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant A prescribed under the relevant Acts and same was not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. In view of the and same was not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. In view of the and same was not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. In view of the adjustment made by the CPC made by the CPC, the assessee preferred appeal before the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under: observing as under:
7. It is therefore, held that the disallowance of Rs. 35,62,677/ 7. It is therefore, held that the disallowance of Rs. 35,62,677/ 7. It is therefore, held that the disallowance of Rs. 35,62,677/- made u/s. 143(1) by CPC on account of appellant's failure to pay the made u/s. 143(1) by CPC on account of appellant's failure to pay the made u/s. 143(1) by CPC on account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and clearly strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustments as envisaged u/s. comes under the prima facie adjustments as envisaged u/s. comes under the prima facie adjustments as envisaged u/s. 143(1)(a)(iv). The order u/s. 143(1) issued by CPC is therefore, 143(1)(a)(iv). The order u/s. 143(1) issued by CPC is therefore, 143(1)(a)(iv). The order u/s. 143(1) issued by CPC is therefore, confirmed fully. Appellant's Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 of appeal on the confirmed fully. Appellant's Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 of appeal on the confirmed fully. Appellant's Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 of appeal on the issue fail and are di issue fail and are dismissed.
Despite notifying Despite notifying neither anyone attended on behalf of the neither anyone attended on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was filed assessee nor any adjournment was filed before us, before us, therefore, we were of the opinion that assessee of the opinion that assessee was not interested in prosecuting not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly ccordingly, the appeal was heard ex the appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). assessee after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). assessee after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR).
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material available on record. We find that in view of the decision of the available on record. We find that in view of the decision of the available on record. We find that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022 any share of in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022 employee’s contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date s contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date s contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant A prescribed under the relevant Acts is not allowable is not allowable as claim u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and t 36(1)(va) of the Act and therefore, the claim being in the nature of in the nature of incorrect claim, same is liable for adjustment incorrect claim, same is liable for adjustment under the provision under the provision of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act )(ii) of the Act . Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding the prima facie adjustment made by the CPC while upholding the prima facie adjustment made by the CPC while upholding the prima facie adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return of income. The the return of income. The sole ground of appeal of the ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. assessee is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.