CHANAKYA ENTERPRISES,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 617/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 September 2023AY 2017-185 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 belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if paid within the due date of filing the return, is not eligible for deduction. The adjustment made under section 143(1) for such disallowance is also justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm declared income for AY 2018-19 and was processed under section 143(1) where an addition of Rs. 39,41,590/- was made for late payment of employees' ESI and PF contributions. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether belated payment of employees' ESI/PF contributions is deductible and if adjustments for such disallowances are permissible under section 143(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 21.09.2023Pronounced: 22.09.2023

O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 22.06.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

2.

The grounds raised read as follows:

1.

The entire Appeal order passed by Learned CIT in so far it is against the Appellant is opposed to principle of equity and justice.

2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) is erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,41,590/- which is made by adjustment U/s.143(1a) of the Act.

3. The learned CIT, Appels erred in considering fact that, disallowance of belated payment ESI, EPS payments are outside scope of adjustment under Section 143(1a) of the Act.

4. The PF and ESI being the deemed income of the assessee as the same is collected from the employee salary and therefore, the same is not under the permissible adjustments U/s.143(1a) of the Act. 5. The learned CIT, Appeals, failed to consider the Judgements of Jaipur ITAT in case of Paris Elysees India Private Limited [TS-77-ITAT-2023(JPR)] and Delhi ITAT ruling in Garg Heart Center & Nursing Home which have been latest rulings post check mate Services Pvt Ltd., ruling of Hon Supreme court. 6. the learned CIT, Appeals erred in considering the plea of the appellant, to consider the issue on technical ground. 7. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, substitute and withdrawal the grounds of appeal.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Assessee is a partnership firm. For the Assessment Year 2018-19, the return of income was filed on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,81,320/-. The return of income was processed by the CPC vide intimation dated 29.01.2020 under section 143(1) of the Act. In the said intimation, addition was made amounting to Rs.39,41,590/- on account of late payment of employees’ contribution to the ESI and PF account.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A), following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT-1 (in Civil Appeal No. 2833/2016 vide its judgment dated 12 October 2022) reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), decided the issue against the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. None was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment letter was filed. However, I proceed to dispose off the matter on merits, after hearing the learned Standing Counsel. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra).

6.

I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and perused the material on record. The solitary issue for adjudication is whether the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF account paid by the assessee belatedly (i.e., the beyond the period prescribed under the respective Acts, however paid within the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act is to be allowed as a deduction. The said issue is no long res integra in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was categorically held that employees’ contribution to ESI/PF beyond the period prescribed under the respective Acts is not entitled for any adjudication.

7.

In the grounds of appeal

, assessee has raised a ground regarding adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act by making a disallowance of Rs.39,41,590/-. This contention of the assessee raised in the ground is not tenable in view of the Co-ordinate Bench’s order of the Tribunal in the case of MTR Maiya’s Vs. ITO reported in 152 taxmann.com

89. (Bangalore Trib.) wherein it was held that disallowance under section 143(1) of the Act towards employees’ contribution to ESI and PF is justified. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal had followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. DCIT reported in [2022] reported in 138 taxmann.com 517. The relevant finding of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows:

“11. Heard both the sides, perused the entire material on record and the orders of the lower authorities. As far as the contention of the assessee that no disallowance can be made u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act towards employees contribution to EPF and ESI is concerned, we find that this issue is settled by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Dy. C1T [2022] 138 taxmann.com 571 wherein it was held as under:— "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record, Thus to say that the. scope of 'incorrect claim' should be circumscribed and restricted by the Explanation which employs the term 'entry' would, in my view, not be correct and the provision must be given full and unfettered play. The explanation cannot curtail or restrict the main thrust or scope of the provision and due weightage as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purposes of section 143(1)(a) of the Act."

12.

In view of the above judgment, the contention of the assessee that no disallowance could be made u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act towards employees contribution to EPF and ESI is rejected.”

8.

In light of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncements cited supra, the appeal filed by the assessee is rejected. It is ordered accordingly.

9.

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

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →