Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2018- 19 & 2019-20 arises out of the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] both dated 16-12-2022 in the matter of intimations issued by Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act. In both the appeals, the grievance of the assessee is same i.e., disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund u/s 36(1)(va)
r.w.s. 43B due to the fact that the dues were deposited beyond due date as specified in respective acts.
The Ld. AR advanced arguments and submitted that there was a minor delay in depositing the dues and therefore, impugned disallowance was not justified. The Ld. AR also submitted the expenditure may alternatively be allowed u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the issues stood squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch of appeals titled as Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs CIT (Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022). The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the same and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under.
For AY 2018-19, the assessee’s return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and certain adjustment was made. One of the adjustments was impugned disallowance. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), considering the cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Electrical India & Ors. Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru (ITA No.789/Chny/2022 dated 04-11-2022), confirmed the disallowance in both the years. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
It could hardly be disputed the contributions were deposited belatedly and this issue stood squarely covered in revenue’s favor by the cited decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. This adjustment could be made u/s 143(1) also as per the cited decision of Tribunal. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned orders, for both the years. The alternative submissions that the expenditure may be allowed under General Section 37(1) could also not be accepted since the specific provisions would prevail over general provisions.
In the result, both the appeals stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on 28th March, 2023.