HOOGHLY ALLOY & STEELS CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-5(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that while employees' contribution not paid within the due date is disallowable, the employer's contribution, if paid before the return filing due date, is deductible. The CIT(Appeals) failed to consider this factual distinction.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerned a disallowance of Rs. 15,05,297/- made by the Assessing Officer for non-payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI within the due dates. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is correct, and whether employer's contribution embedded in the disallowance should be excluded.
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, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad
Per Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
Assessment Year : 2017-2018 Hooghly Alloy & Steels Co. Pvt. Limited (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 9th June, 2023 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.
Though the assessee has taken four grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,05,297/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer by making a disallowance on the ground that employees’ contribution was not paid to the P.F. & ESI Account within the due date provided under those Acts. Thus as per Section 36(1)(va), the ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim and made the addition of Rs.15,05,297/-.
Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, submitted that as far as disallowance of employees’ contribution not paid within due date to respective P.F. & ESI Act is concerned, the controversy has been silenced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Limited –vs.- CIT reported in 143 taxmann.com 178 and there is no merit in the appeal of the assessee. However, he pointed out that out of the total addition of Rs.15,05,297/-, a sum of Rs.8,65,724/- pertains to employer’s contribution and this amount
Assessment Year : 2017-2018 Hooghly Alloy & Steels Co. Pvt. Limited cannot be added because employer’s contribution is to be allowed to the assessee as a deduction if paid before the due date of filing of the return. Therefore, he prayed that the issue be set aside to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for verification and re-adjudication.
On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the order of ld. CIT(Appeals).
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee has raised a specific plea to this effect to the ld. CIT(Appeals) also, but ld. 1st Appellate Authority failed to take note of this fact, rather devoted 7-8 pages in deciding this simple issue. In her order, she takes note of theoretical explanation of the proposition of law that addition under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) can be made or not. The factual aspect has not been looked into. The ld. Assessing Officer has just processed the return of the assessee with the help of Software. Therefore, we remit this issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer shall examine the facts and determine the amounts of employees’ and employer’s contributions separately. The disallowance under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) can be made with regard to employees’ contribution to P.F. & ESI account if not paid within due date provided under those Acts. In case,
Assessment Year : 2017-2018 Hooghly Alloy & Steels Co. Pvt. Limited employer’s contribution is also embedded in the total amount considered by the ld. Assessing Officer, then, that amount be excluded from the addition.
In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on September 25, 2023.
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.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026