SKS ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU, BANGLURU
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is correct. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT.
What were the facts?
The assessee, SKS Enterprises, deposited employees' contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts. This information was available in Form 3CD, leading to an adjustment and disallowance by the AO under Section 36(1)(va). The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts is disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:
SKS Enterprises [ Assessee/ Appellant] for A.Y. 2018-19, against Appellate order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 30th July, 2021, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against Assessment order under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 7th November, 2019, passed by the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore, (the learned Assessing Officer) disallowing ₹5,80,629/- being employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESIC deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Provident Fund Act/ ESIC Act, applying
2. Assessee is aggrieved with this and has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, and in Law, the CIT (A) NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made ofRs.5,80,629/- being payment of PF and ESIC dues under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act considering the same as not deposited on time ignoring the fact that the delay was marginal and payment was made before filing the return.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate:
a. that the payments were deposited in the relevant fund before the due date of filing the return. b. Amendment made in Finance Act 2021 pertaining to non-applicability of due date as provided in Section 43B of the Act is not retrospective in nature.
3. The appellant, therefore, prays that the disallowance of ₹5,80,629/- is respect of Late payment of PF shall be deleted.”
This appeal is recalled by Miscellaneous Application order dated 25th May, 2023, wherein the appeal originally allowed in favour of the assessee was recalled based on the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue.
Despite notice to the assessee, none appeared and therefore, the issue is decided on the merits of the case.
The learned Departmental Representative was heard.
On careful consideration of the facts before us, we find that the assessee has deposited employees’ contribution of Provident Fund (PF) and ESIC dues during the year beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective PF and ESIC Act. The above information is available in form no.3CD and accordingly, the adjustment was made by Central Processing Centre under the Provision of Section 143(1) (a) (iv) of the Act. Same is not allowable u/s 36 (1) (va) of the Act. The disallowance is indicated in the form NO 3 CD but not made in the ROI. The issue is also
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.07.2023.
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 →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026