AXIOM ENERGY CONVERSION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is not allowable as per Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Section 43B is not applicable to Section 36(1)(va).
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing, filed its return of income. The CPC proposed an addition for delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI.
What were the issues?
Whether delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is deductible when paid after the due date but before the due date of filing the return. Applicability of Section 43B to Section 36(1)(va).
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, Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Axiom Energy Conversion Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 1(1) PAN:AACCA0120E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, CA Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR Date of hearing: 23/01/2023 Date of pronouncement: 24/01/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11/11/2022 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2019-2020.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs.17,55,091/- on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of SMPS Adapters for water purifiers, Set top Boxes and mobile chargers. It filed its return of income on 30.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.33,46,793/-. The CPC Bengaluru in the intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the I.T. Act proposed addition of Rs. 17,55,091/- being delayed payment of Employees Contribution to PF & ESIC.
In appeal, the learned CIT (A)-NFAC rejected the contention of the assessee that such payments were made before the due date of filing of the return. The CIT (A)-NFAC accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in 143 Taxmann.com 178 has held that the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI to the extent it is not paid within due date prescribed under the PF Act is not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the provisions of section 43B would not be applied to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ contribution. Since the assessee in the instant case admittedly not paid the employees’ contribution to PF & ESI before the statutory due dates prescribed under the said Act, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A)-NFAC was fully justified in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The various decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the binding decision of the Page 2 of 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court cited (Supra). In view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC in sustaining the addition made by the CPC Bengaluru in the intimation u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the I.T. Act and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, 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 →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026