M/S. INDUS TMT INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that some payments were belatedly made and directed the CIT(A) to verify all payments against challans. The disallowance should only be made for belated contributions, while timely payments are to be allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessee company had its employees' share of ESI/PF contributions disallowed entirely. The assessee argued that only a portion was paid late, but within the return filing due date, and submitted challans for verification.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire employee's share of ESI/PF contributions should be disallowed due to late payment, or only the belatedly paid portion.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 4.11.2022 passed by NFAC for assessment year 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Assessing Officer had erred in passing the intimation in the manner passed by him and the learned CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the same. The impugned order as confirmed being bad in law is required to be quashed. 2.1 In any case the learned Assessing Officer had erred in disallowing the entire amount of employees share of ESI/PF including late payment of PF/ESI beyond the due dates prescribed in respective acts but within the due date of filling of ROI. The disallowance being M/s. Indus TMT Industries Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 against the law, the additions made by AO was bad in law and CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the same. 2.2 The lower authorities have not properly appreciated the facts of the case and law applicable. On proper appreciation of facts and applicable law it will be clear that the payments made with in due date is allowable.
3. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the impugned order as confirmed by CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre be quashed or at least the payment made on time as per the late payment of PF/ESI has to be allowed.”
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The assessee is a company and had filed its original return of income for the year under consideration on 22.2.2021 declaring total income of Rs.28,18,89,620/-. The assessee received communication of proposed adjustment u/s 133(1A) of the Act on 22.9.2021 wherein there was a disallowance of Rs.23,67,025/- being contribution to ESI & PF. 2.2 The assessee submitted a response disagreeing to the proposal for adjustment. Assessee submitted that only few months were paid after due date but before the filing of IT return. Thereafter, the assessee received the intimation, which was passed on 24.12.2021 adding the entire amount of Rs.23,67,025/- irrespective of whether there was a delay or not in the payment. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 2.4 The assessee submitted that it had received from employees a sum of Rs.21,35,700/- towards their contribution to PF and Rs.2,31,325/- towards their contribution to ESI. The assessee submitted that sum of Rs.26,182/- towards ESI & PF and Rs.5,49,399/- towards PF was remitted after the due date prescribed under the respective Act. The Ld. AR referring the page 128 to 129 of paper book submitted that the payment challan for financial year 2019-20 in respect of ESI & PF were filed before the ld. CIT(A).
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026