Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee was adjudicated on 06.04.2022 however same has been recalled by way of the order dated 28.04.2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 59/Mum/2023 and therefore, both the parties were again heard on the ground raised in the appeal. The relevant grounds of appeal are reproduced as under:
Centrum Microcredit Ltd. Centrum Microcredit Ltd. 2 ITA No. No. 1602/M/2021
(a) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National 1. (a) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National 1. (a) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre hereinafter referr Faceless Appeal Centre hereinafter referred as CIT(A)] erred in ed as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 41,440/ confirming the disallowance of Rs. 41,440/- being delayed being delayed payment of Employee's Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) payment of Employee's Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) payment of Employee's Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and and Rs. Rs. 14,405/- 14,405/ being being Employee's Employee's State State Insurance Insurance Corporation (SIC) aggregating to Rs.55,845/ Corporation (SIC) aggregating to Rs.55,845/- under section under section 36(1)(va) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ) r.w. section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). (b) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment made to (b) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment made to (b) The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature and applies to subjected years in appeal. and applies to subjected years in appeal. The Appellant submits that it The Appellant submits that it has filed the further submission has filed the further submission during the course of appellate proceeding wherein it pleaded during the course of appellate proceeding wherein it pleaded during the course of appellate proceeding wherein it pleaded that amendment made in sections 36(1) (va) and 43 B of the that amendment made in sections 36(1) (va) and 43 B of the that amendment made in sections 36(1) (va) and 43 B of the Act vide Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature. However, Act vide Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature. However, Act vide Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature. However, the submission of the Appellant has not b the submission of the Appellant has not been considered by een considered by the CIT(A); hence, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) the CIT(A); hence, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) the CIT(A); hence, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. should be deleted. 2. (a) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in not 2. (a) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in not 2. (a) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in not granting the TDS credit of Rs. 7,84,476/ granting the TDS credit of Rs. 7,84,476/- claimed on the basis claimed on the basis of income offered during the s of income offered during the subjected year. (b) The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the above TDS claim on the (b) The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the above TDS claim on the (b) The CIT(A) erred in rejecting the above TDS claim on the ground that the payer has deducted the TDS in immediate ground that the payer has deducted the TDS in immediate ground that the payer has deducted the TDS in immediate next year; though the revenue is offered and TDS is claimed next year; though the revenue is offered and TDS is claimed next year; though the revenue is offered and TDS is claimed by the Appellant during subjected year. by the Appellant during subjected year. (c) The CIT(A) erred in (c) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the TDS credit of not appreciating that the TDS credit of Rs. 7,84,476/ Rs. 7,84,476/- is noy claimed by the Appellant in subsequent is noy claimed by the Appellant in subsequent years also; hence, denial of TDS credit is not justified. years also; hence, denial of TDS credit is not justified. years also; hence, denial of TDS credit is not justified. 2. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The issue in material on record. The issue in dispute involved in the appeal is in respect of disallowance of dispute involved in the appeal is in respect of disallowance of dispute involved in the appeal is in respect of disallowance of employee’s contribution to s contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the paid after the due date under the he Ld. Computerized Processing Centre (CPC) relevant enactment.T .The Ld. Computerized Processing Centre (CPC) made adjustment for the said disallowance in the order u/s 143(1) made adjustment for the said disallowance in the order u/s 143(1) made adjustment for the said disallowance in the order u/s 143(1)
Centrum Microcredit Ltd. Centrum Microcredit Ltd. 3 ITA No. No. 1602/M/2021
of the Act on the basis of the reporting by the assessee in the tax of the Act on the basis of the reporting by the assessee in the tax of the Act on the basis of the reporting by the assessee in the tax audit report filed along with the return of income. audit report filed along with the return of income.
Before us, it was clai Before us, it was claimed by the assessee that since med by the assessee that since disallowance of employee disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI was earlier being s contribution to PF/ESI was earlier being allowed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and therefore, allowed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and therefore, allowed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and therefore, disallowance was a debatable nature and it should not be disallowance was a debatable nature and it should not be disallowance was a debatable nature and it should not be adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act. adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act.
3.1 We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that employees Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that employees Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that employees contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the relevant contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the relevant contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the relevant enactment is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. This enactment is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. This enactment is not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. This interpretation of the provision of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme nterpretation of the provision of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme nterpretation of the provision of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is effective, since its inception, , since its inception, therefore, issue is no longer therefore, issue is no longer debatable. In terms of section 43(1)(a)(ii) of the Act n terms of section 43(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, any incorrect n terms of section 43(1)(a)(ii) of the Act claim which is apparent from any information the r claim which is apparent from any information the return of income eturn of income, is liable to be adjusted u/s 143(1) of the Act is liable to be adjusted u/s 143(1) of the Act. Since in the case ince in the case, the claim of employee’s contribution s contribution paid to PF/ESI after due date to PF/ESI after due date under the relevant Act is apparent under the relevant Act is apparent fromthe information fromthe information in tax audit report filed alongwith alongwith the return of income and thus , thus , the claim is incorrect. The Ld. CIT(A) is correct in upholding the order of the Ld. incorrect. The Ld. CIT(A) is correct in upholding the order of the Ld. incorrect. The Ld. CIT(A) is correct in upholding the order of the Ld. CPC in making the said adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act. CPC in making the said adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act. CPC in making the said adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the Accordingly, we uphold the same. The grounds of same. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed. assessee are accordingly dismissed.
Centrum Microcredit Ltd. Centrum Microcredit Ltd. 4 ITA No. No. 1602/M/2021
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 08/05/2023. /05/2023. Sd/ Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH KULDIP SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 08/05/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai