ASHISH VISHNUPRAKASH AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISSTANT, DY. COMMISSTIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 994/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 July 2023AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is correct. Employees' contribution to provident fund remitted after the due date under the Provident Fund Act is disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited employees' contribution to provident fund after the due date under PF laws but before the income tax return filing due date. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether employees' contribution to provident fund deposited after the due date under PF Act but before the income tax return filing due date is disallowable under Section 36(1)(va).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM

For Respondent: Shri Ashik Kumar Ambastha, DR
Hearing: 10.07.2023Pronounced: 12.07.2023

and 994/Mum/2022, is filed by Asish Vishnuprakash Agarwal (assessee / appellant) for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20. The facts stated for A.Y. 2018- 2019 shows that assessee filed return of income at ₹51,42,668/-, which was processed by passing an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, wherein a disallowance of ₹472,313/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was made on account of deposit of Employees’ Contribution towards Provident Fund

2.

The only issue involved in this appeal is that for A.Y. 2018- 19, a sum of ₹4,72,340/-, being Employee’s Contribution towards provident fund dues which are deposited beyond the due date prescribed under Section 38 of the Provident Fund Act, but paid before the due date of filing of the return of income for respective years is correctly disallowed by lower authorities or not. For A.Y. 2019-20, this amount of such contribution is ₹2,09,057/-.

3.

Issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 448 ITR 580, wherein it has been held that Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund remitted after due date under relevant enactment of Provident Fund and ESIC Act, is disallowable in terms of Section 36(1) (va) of the Act.

4.

Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. As the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we proceed to decide the issue on the merits of the case.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative also vehemently submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has now decided this issue squarely and i.e. the only reason for recall of the order and therefore, the issue may be decided based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7.

In the result both the appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07. 2023.

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 →