MEERA SANJAY PATIL,NERUL(EAST), NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, VISAKHAPATANAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3692/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 August 2026AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed payment of employee's PF/ESIC contribution is settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return of income, and during processing, the AO disallowed employees' contribution to PF and ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed payment. This disallowance was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, if deposited after the due date, is allowable as a deduction. Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Londhe; Sr. DR

आदेश / ORDER PER: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals Addl/JCIT (A) – 1, Visakhapatnam [for brevity “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2019-20, date of order 31.05.2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the CPC,

ITA 3692/MUM/2026 MEERA SANJAY PATIL

Bengaluru (for brevity ‘Ld. AO’), order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 14.05.2020.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by declaring total income Rs. 24,57,997/-. The return was filed along with Audit Report u/s. 44AB of the Act. Consequently, the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and during processing of return the Ld. AO disallowed the employees contribution to PF and ESIC u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act amount to Rs. 45,19,141/-. The Ld. AO later on passed a rectification order and reduced the disallowance amount to Rs. 44,47,737/- u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal and rejected the appeal on the grounds that the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) related to delay in payment of PF and ESIC under the respective act was not within the due date is duly following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT-1, reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). It was observed that, in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that employees' contribution towards ESI/PF is allowable as a deduction only if the same is deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, particularly in respect of the period prior to the statutory amendments. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the orders of the revenue authorities be upheld.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and examined the material available on record. In our considered opinion, the issue is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the present

ITA 3692/MUM/2026 MEERA SANJAY PATIL

case, the adjustment was initially made while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, while disposing of the rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act, the Ld. AO considered the assessee's submissions and granted relief by reducing the disallowance amount to Rs. 44,47,737/-, while sustaining only the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. So, the binding precedential value of the judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra) Accordingly, we are bound to follow the law laid down therein. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) or in the rectification order passed by the Ld. AO under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.3692/Mum/2026 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th day of August 2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 12/08/2026 Soumili, PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयु� CIT 3. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, 4. Mumbai गाड�फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// 3

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 →