AJAY SAINDAS MEHRA ,JUHU MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17 1 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3672/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2026AY 2022-235 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The admission of an SLP in another case does not dilute the binding precedent of Checkmate Services. Therefore, the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed under section 143(1) leading to a demand due to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 36(1)(va). A rectification petition was filed, where the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was allowed, but the addition under section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was confirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI beyond the due date prescribed under the respective statutes is allowable as a deduction. Whether the admission of an SLP by the Supreme Court suspends the binding precedent of a prior judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 36(1)(va),Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA 3670/MUM/2026
ITA 3671/MUM/2026
ITA 3672/MUM/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: A BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 3670/MUM/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2019-20) ITA 3671/MUM/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� /Assessment Year: 2020-21) ITA 3672/MUM/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� /Assessment Year: 2022-23) AJAY SAINDAS MEHRA INCOME TAX OFFICER 17 (1)(1), MUMBAI 10 Shivshankar, 10th North South Road, JVPD Scheme, Room No 233, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. BKC, Juhu, Mumbai-400049, Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAEPM0151C

अपीलाथ��ारा /Appellant represented by: Shri Mandar Vaidya ��थ��ारा /Respondent represented by: Shri Surendra Mohan - SR. DR. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of conclusion of hearing: 22-Jul-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/ Date of pronouncement: 29-Jul-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: A bunch of appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under Section 250 of the Income

ITA 3670, 3671, 3672/MUM/2026; AJAY SAINDAS MEHRA Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’), for Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23, date of orders 06.01.2026. The impugned orders emanated from the orders of the Ld. Income Tax Officer – Ward 17(1)(1), Mumbai (for brevity ‘Ld. AO’), order passed under Section 154 of the Act, date of order 04.07.2025, 03.07.2025 and 02.06.2025 for A.Y.s 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 respectively.

2.

Since all the appeals arise from identical facts and involve common issue for convenience, all the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA 3670/Mum/2026, AY 2019-20 is taken as lead case and the decisions rendered therein shall be applied mutatis mutandis of all other appeals.

ITA 3670/Mum/2026, A.Y. 2019-20: 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and regularly filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act. The return was processed under section 143(1) resulting in a demand due to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification petition before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO passed the order under section 154 and considering the assessee's submission, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was duly allowed, but related to addition made under section 36(1)(va) for delay in payment of employees' contribution in PF and ESI, amount to Rs. 12,91,470/- is confirmed. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the identical issue is presently under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodland

ITA 3670, 3671, 3672/MUM/2026; AJAY SAINDAS MEHRA (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. Director v. ACIT, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1532 of 2026, order dated 27.01.2026, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted a batch of petitions in view of the conflicting opinions expressed by different High Courts related to admissibility of the “due date”. It was, therefore, contended that the present matter should also be restored to the file of the Ld. AO to afford the assessee a further opportunity, placing reliance on the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld. AR further submitted that the issue requires fresh examination and verification by the Ld. AO.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly opposed the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR. It was contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while admitting the Special Leave Petition in Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), neither granted any stay nor rendered any decision overruling or diluting the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT-1, reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). It was submitted 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.

6.

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 case, the adjustment was initially made while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, while disposing of the rectification

ITA 3670, 3671, 3672/MUM/2026; AJAY SAINDAS MEHRA proceedings under section 154 of the Act, the Ld. AO considered the assessee's submissions and granted relief in respect of one of the two adjustments, while sustaining only the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. We further find that the order relied upon by the Ld. AR in Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) merely records the admission of the Special Leave Petitions and does not contain any interim direction staying the operation of the law declared in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), nor does it adjudicate the issue on merits. Mere admission of an SLP does not dilute or suspend 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.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 3670 to 3672 /Mum/2025 are dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of July 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 29/07/2026 Soumili Das, PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file.

ITA 3670, 3671, 3672/MUM/2026; AJAY SAINDAS MEHRA BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →