KAMARHATTY COMPANY LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties faced by the assessee due to the pandemic. It directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's explanation for the delayed deposits and allow the deduction for periods where incapacity/impossibility of performance can be demonstrated.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction for Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and ESI. The lower authorities disallowed this claim due to late deposits. The assessee argued that the delay was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of deduction for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is justified, especially when the delay was caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad
order : December 14, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.01.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is relating to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of claim of deduction in respect of Employees Contribution of Provident Fund and ESI. The lower authorities have disallowed the said claim of deduction for late deposits of the amount in the relevant fund.
Assessment year: 2021-22 Kamarhatty Company Ltd 3. The ld. AR has been fair enough to submit that the issue is now covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be allowed in respect of late deposits of ESI/PF. However, the ld. counsel has made a submission that in this case, there was a reasonable cause for late deposits of the amount in the relevant fund. That the period covered in this case is from 15.05.2020 to 15.04.2021 and that the said period was marred by Covid Pandemic and there were lockdown, the staff was not attending office and even the offices were also closed. The ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the assessee cannot be faulted because of his incapability to perform the aforesaid statutory duty. The ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the assessee ultimately has deposited the Employee’s Contribution to the relevant fund.
We find merit in the above submissions of the ld. AR. If there was impossibility of performance then certainly the assessee should not be punished for the act which was beyond his powers of control. In our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity to demonstrate before the Assessing Officer, the difficulties faced by him regarding the delayed deposits arising due to Covid Pandemic/lockdown and the Assessing Officer will examine the explanation vis-a-vis the date of defaults. The Assessing Officer would not disallow the claim of deduction in respect of late deposits of ESI/PF in respect of dates regarding which the assessee will be able to demonstrate his incapacity/impossibility of performance. The Assessing Officer will accordingly decide the issue afresh.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026