ACIT-13(1) (2), MUMBAI vs. OOMMEN CHACKALYIL CHACKO, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2571/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 January 2023AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. overruled the basis on which the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal against a disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on a previous Tribunal order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the deductibility of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC. The applicability of Section 43B versus Section 36(1)(va) was central to the dispute.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

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, C BENCH, MUMBAI

order : 23.01.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 31.08.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] appeal against the intimation/order, dated 16.12.2021 passed by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was allowed by the CIT(A).

1.

Assessment Year: 2020-2021 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the Appellant. We note that the solitary issue raised in the present appeal pertains to disallowance of INR 1,84,73,025/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) vide intimation/order dated 16.12.2021 issued/passed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), the Assessee had raised many grounds including the ground relating to violation of principles of natural justice. The CIT(A), vide order dated 31.08.2022 deleted the addition on merits by following the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. [ITA No. 6426/Mum/2017, dated 27.07.2021]. However, recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1: 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2016, held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employees contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Thus, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal on which reliance was placed by the CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the Assessee stands overruled. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue in the appeal is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after taking into consideration all the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before the CIT(A) and after giving the Appellant/Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the issue is being remanded back to the file Assessment Year: 2020-2021 of the CIT(A) all the rights and contentions are left open. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal stand disposed off.

3.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 23.01.2023.

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 →