MEENAL HEMANSHU NANDOLA,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 834/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 September 2023AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd.' regarding disallowance for delayed remittances. However, since the assessee claimed incorrect details in the tax audit report and did not provide supporting evidence like payment challans, the issue was remanded for verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income for AY 2018-19 was processed, and a disallowance of ₹18,84,295 was made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed remittance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC, based on the tax audit report. The assessee contested this, claiming the tax audit report contained erroneous details of payment.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified when the assessee claims the tax audit report contains erroneous details of payment, and if so, whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to support their claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 250,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, PUNE

Before: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Ms Kimaya for Kishor Phadke
Pronounced: 01/09/2023

द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Ms Kimaya for Kishor Phadke Revenue by : Shri R. Y. Balawade सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 08/08/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The impugned DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1037188731(1) dt. 24/11/2021 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short ‘NFAC’] passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’], by the present appeal is challenged by the assessee.

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4

2.

Without rearticulating grounds of appeal it is apt to voice that, the substantive ground of present appeal is directed against disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) on the basis of information reported in tax audit report [for short ‘TAR’] filed with return of income [for short ITR’].

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are; the appellant is an individual who filed her ITR for AY 2018-19 on 21/10/2018 declaring total income of ₹4,05,420/-. The return was summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act determining total income at ₹22,89,710/- by the DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru by disallowing an amount of ₹18,84,295/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed remittance of employee’s Contribution towards PF/ESIC on the basis of information reported in the TAR.

4. Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully contested the aforestated disallowance before first appellate authority.

5. By present appeal the assessee challenged the action of first appellate authority for not considering her submission with respect to erroneous details of payment crept in the tax audit report filed alongwith the return.

ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4

6.

After considering the rival submission, vehement arguments; perused the material placed on record in the light of rule 18 of the ITAT Rules, 1963.

7.

We note that rival parties have no dispute over legal position as laid down in landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. Vs CIT & Ors’ reported in 448 ITR 518, wherein the Hon’ble Lordship have categorically held that, where any remittance of employees contribution to specified fund is made after the prescribed due date, disallowance of such remission u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act is inevitable. The appellant without disputing the applicability has set-up this case contesting that the details of remittance reported in TAR are incorrect and actual date of remission can be re-verified in the evince of payment challan, PF/ESI office receipt etc. We further note that, while dismissing aforestated contention, the Ld. NFAC called upon the assessee to furnish revised return and revised audit report in support of her claim of having deposited within the prescribed due date, which remained to be complied or filed by the appellant assessee.

ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4

8.

In the light of aforestated factual position, the first appellate proceedings were culminated without there being any evidence as articulated in para 5.1.2 of the impugned order. For the reason we deem it fit to remand this limited issue of verification of claim of the assessee in the light of evidential material in the form of payment challans and corrected TAR etc. and deal with the same in accordance with the provisions of 36(1)(va) of the Act and in the light of decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors’ (Supra).

9.

In result, the appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Friday 01st day of September, 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 →