ALMECH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. CPC, KARNATAKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1159/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 July 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting that the facts were identical to a previous year where a coordinate bench had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. was followed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was processed under section 143(1) with an addition of Rs. 39,38,394/- for employee's contribution to PF/ESI not paid within the statutory due date. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, relying on a Supreme Court decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for employee's contribution to PF/ESI, not paid within the statutory due date, is valid when processing the return under section 143(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

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, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Shashi Bekal
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Hearing: 13.07.2023Pronounced: 13.07.2023

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 21.2.2023 passed by the learned CIT(A)-48, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs. 39,38,394/- relating to the employee’s contribution to PF/ESI made by CPC, Bengaluru while processing the return of income filed by the assessee.

2.

The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 13.2.2019. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 18.12.2019, wherein addition of Rs. 39,38,394/- relating to employees’ contribution to PF/ESI was made, it was not paid within the due date prescribed under the respective statutes. The assessee challenged the above said addition by filing appeal before the learned CIT(A), who confirmed the 2 Almech Enterprises addition by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (Supreme Court). Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

At the time of hearing it was brought to our notice that the Assessing Officer had made an identical addition in A.Y. 2019-20, which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in that year. The appeal preferred by assessee before the Tribunal has been dismissed vide its order dated 7.7.2023 passed in ITA No. 1161/Mum/2023. We noticed from the order passed by the Tribunal for AY 2019-20 that the Coordinate Bench has also followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra) while confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Since the facts are identical in this year also and since the learned CIT(A) has followed the Supreme Court’s decision referred above, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order passed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, we confirm the same.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 13.7.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →