SMT PREMSHEELA DEVI RANJEET SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ADIC (CPC), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The disallowance of PF and ESIC was to be re-examined.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction for PF and ESIC payments made after the due date but before filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC, deposited before filing the return, is allowable as a deduction. The applicability of amendments to Section 43B and Section 36(1)(vi) was also considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.609 citing368 ITR 749 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC ”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH Smt. Premsheela Devi Ranjeet Singh,
आदेश/ ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘ the CIT(A)’ ] dated 12/10/2021 for the assessment year 2019-20.
(A.Y.2019-20) 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in appeal is against disallowance of payment of PF and ESIC u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’].
The notice of hearing of appeal was sent to the assessee through RPAD. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on the address mentioned in Form No.36. The notice is deemed to be served as the notice has not been received back unserved from the Postal Authorities. Despite service of notice neither the assessee nor any Authorized Representative of the assessee is present in the Court today. Therefore, this appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record.
The assessee filed the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 26/10/2019. Return of the assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and intimation was issued to the assessee on 21/02/2020. While processing the return of income the Centralized Processing Center(CPC) disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction in respect of delayed payment of PF and ESIC.
4.1 Aggrieved against the order dated 21/02/2020, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The contention of the assessee before the First Appellate Authority was that the delay in payment of PF and ESIC is under the respective Act, however, the amount of PF and ESIC was deposited before filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, hence the same is allowable u/s. 43B of the Act. The CIT(A) placing reliance on Explanation – 5 to section 43B of the Act and Explanation – 2 to section 36(1)(vi) inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, dismissed the appeal of assessee .
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the findings of CIT(A). From perusal of the ground raised before the Tribunal it emanates that the assessee has assailed the findings of CIT(A) primarily on two issues:
(A.Y.2019-20) (i) The amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 by way of insertion of Explanation -5 to section 43B of the Act is prospective. (ii) The issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., 368 ITR 749 (Bom).
We have heard the submissions made by Ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. We find that it is an admitted position that the assessee had deposited PF and ESIC dues before filing return of income for the impugned assessment year, but after the due date under the respective Acts. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 143 taxmann.com 178 has held that provisions of section 43B could not be applied in case of amounts which were deducted from employee’s income as contribution and were held in trust by the employer. The non-obstante clause u/s. 43B would also not absolve the assessee employer from its liability to deposit employee’s contribution on or before due date. Thus, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue in accordance with the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and facts of the case. The appeal by the assessee is thus, allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 10th day of March 2023.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026