BIJENDRA SINGH,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE ROURKELA, ROURKELA

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.101/CTK/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2019-2020) Bijendra Singh, Vs ACIT, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela Plot No.346/1432, Sarnatoli, Jagda, Rourkela, Sundargarh PAN No. :AEOPS 8527 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16.03.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1040885951(1) for the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. It was submitted by the ld AR that the issue involved in this appeal is delayed payment of PF and ESI in respect of employees contribution. Ld A.R. submitted that the payment was remitted well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. It was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and re-adjudication. 3. Ld Sr. DR submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd Vs. CIT rendered in Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), wherein, the

2 ITA No.101/CTK/2023 Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if the employees contribution to PF and ESI has been paid beyond the time prescribed under the relevant PF Act, then same is not allowable under section 43B of the Act even after the payment has been made before the due date of filing of return under the Income tax Act. It was the submission that the amount of employees contribution to PF and ESI, which has not been paid within the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court to be not allowable u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. It was the submission that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 52 & 53 has also categorically held that the provisions of section 43B would not apply to the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra) has categorically held that the employees contribution to PF and ESI to the extent it is not paid within due date prescribed under the PF Act, is not allowable u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also admittedly held that the provisions of section 43B of the Act would not apply to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (supra), we are of the view that the delayed payment in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI is not allowable. 5. In the case of Nirakar Security & Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd vs ITO in ITA No.98/CTK/2022 for Assessment Year 2016-17,

3 ITA No.101/CTK/2023 order dated 17.10.2022, the Division Bench of this Tribunal after considering the arguments of ld AR, has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing officer with the following directions: “6. Liberty is granted to the ld AR to make all submissions in respect of allowability of disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and same is also not covered under section 43B of the Act, the amount of delayed contribution to PF and ESI in respect of employees contribution would be treated as income in the hands of the assessee u/.s.2(24)(x) and on subsequent payment of the same, it would be a business expenditure, which can be claimed u/s.37(1) of the Act. We are not expressing any opinion in regard to his arguments as it has not been examined by the lower authorities. Liberty is also granted to the assessee to raise all arguments as are found necessary by him before the lower authorities.” 6. As the issue in the present appeal is also identical to the issue in the case of Nirakar Security & Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd.,(supra), on identical findings the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/06/2023. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 07/06/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

4 ITA No.101/CTK/2023 आदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- Bijendra Singh, Plot No.346/1432, Sarnatoli, Jagda, Rourkela, Sundargarh 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- ACIT, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, 5. ITAT, Cuttack गार्ज पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. सत्यावऩत प्रयत //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack