M/S. MUSTANG ENTERPRISES,MUM vs. ITO, CIR-20(1), MUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 71/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 June 2023AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution towards PF & ESIC, even if paid before the return filing due date, is not an allowable deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, made a delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards PF & ESIC after the due date but before the due date for filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESIC beyond the statutory due date but before the return filing due date is an allowable business expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 139(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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Rupal Shah, Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 16.03.2023Pronounced: 13.06.2023

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has challenged the solitary ground of disallowance amounting to Rs.3,87,955/- on employees contribution towards PF & ESIC deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act but before filing of the returns u/s. 139(1) of the Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of various types of socks and allied accessories. The assessee had filed its return of income dated 30.10.2017, declaring total income at Rs.82,38,650/-.

(A.Y.2017-18) M/s. Mustang Enterprises vs. ITO The A.O. / CPC made a disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act as being employees contribution towards PF & ESIC paid by the assessee after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts but before filing of the return of income.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the impugned addition made by the A.O/CPC by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC).

5.

The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the assessee has deposited the impugned addition made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act being the employees contribution towards PF & ESIC after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts nevertheless paid before the due date for filing of the returns u/s. 139(1) of the Act. All the grounds raised by the assessee pertain to the impugned disallowance towards delayed payment of PF & ESIC. Pertinently all these issues raised by the assessee in its ground of appeals are covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that the delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESIC will not be an allowable deduction and that section 43B of the Act does not cover employees contribution and the same relates to only employer’s contribution towards PF & ESIC.

Since this issue has been settled by the highest forums, it becomes the law of the land.

Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in relying on the (A.Y.2017-18) M/s. Mustang Enterprises vs. ITO proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.)

Ltd. (supra). Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.06.2023

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 →