LATE NAND JEE UPADHYAY L/H SHRI DUSHYANT UPADHYAY,VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE - 02, VARANASI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, the tribunal held that the addition made for non-payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI within the due dates was correct and not deductible.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay due to domestic issues and the assessee's subsequent death. The delay was condoned by the tribunal. The core issue was the addition of Rs. 55.75 lakhs for non-payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESI within statutory due dates.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable. Whether the employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESI, if not paid within the statutory due dates, is allowable as a deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT BENCH : VARANASI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA
ORDER
PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM:
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, and it relates to the assessment year 2019-20.
The appeal is barred by limitation by 329 days. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the delay on the ground that the assessee was attending certain domestic problems relating to matrimonial issues in the family and subsequently, the assessee also died. Hence the assessee could not file the appeal in time. Subsequently, the legal heir of the assessee has filed this appeal with a delay on noticing outstanding demand.
We heard the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made by the assessee, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
The only issue urged in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs.55.75 lakhs made u/s 36(1)(va) for non-payment of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI within the due dates prescribed under the respective Statutes.
We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that this issue has been decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the payment of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI shall not be liable to be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, if the same has not been paid within the due dates prescribed in the respective Statute. Since the decision rendered by the ld. CIT(A) is covered by the above-said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with his decision.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
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 Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Jashim Uddin vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OrsGauhati · 1 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Khadeer Baig vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026