AJIT KUMAR JAIN,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU. C/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 56/RAN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 June 2023AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal dismissed grounds related to delayed EPF/ESI payments, following a Supreme Court ruling. However, it held that the addition for late GST filing fees could not be made summarily in an intimation under Section 143(1).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2019-20. The appeal involved issues regarding delayed payment of EPF/ESI and an addition for late GST filing fees.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF is deductible, and if late GST filing fees can be added summarily.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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, “SMC” BENCH: RANCHI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 06.09.2021 for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

Issue raised in ground nos. 1 and 2 isin respect of delayed payment of EPF & ESI which has been adjudicated by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of Ajit Kumar Khan delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.”Accordingly ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed.

3.

Issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 57,350/- being late fee for filing of GST return.

4.

Facts in brief are that the AO has made an addition for late filing fee of GST returns whereas the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same stating that the same to be at par with interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act which is also not allowable and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the issue is debatable and whether the amount of late filing fee paid for GST return is allowable or not and cannot be the subject matter of addition in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and cannot be added in a summery manner.Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 6th June, 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 →