ORISSAJOB.COM,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 270/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 October 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the materials on record. The dispute revolved around the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had prepared a detailed analysis of the delayed deposits, and the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this issue has been settled by the judgment in the case of Checkmate Services (Pvt.) Limited vs Pr.CIT-1 (Supra). Accordingly, respectfully following the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. No weight was found in the submissions made by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, OrissaJob.com, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The return was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Section 143(2) were issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed a violation of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, noting that the assessee had not deposited employee's contribution to ESI/PF within the due dates prescribed by the respective Acts. The AO made an addition of Rs. 9,71,288/-. The assessee appealed to the NFAC Delhi (CIT(A)), which dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute regarding the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is Rs. 9,02,513/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 9,02,513/- under Section 36(1)(va) towards employee's contribution to PF and ESI is justified, when the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return and salary was disbursed in the subsequent month? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 9,02,513/- under Section 36(1)(va) is justified, considering that salary is paid on a consolidated basis and the amount is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1)? (Question of law) 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 68,775/- is justified, when the said amount was paid for interest on delayed payment and administrative charges, and is allowable expenditure under Section 37(1)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The employee's contribution towards PF and ESI was deposited before filing the return of income, making the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) unjustified. - Salary is paid on a consolidated basis and has been allowed under Section 37(1), therefore, the employee's contribution should also be allowed. - The amount of Rs. 68,775/- represents interest on delayed payment and administrative charges, which are allowable expenditures under Section 37(1). Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (Pvt.) Limited vs CIT-1 reported in (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). - The order of the lower authorities should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 37(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 270/CTK/2026 Assessment Year :2020-21

ORISSAJOB.COM Vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), BHUBANESWAR Plot No. -594/3530, Ebaranga, Sunderapada, Odisha- 751007 Bhubaneswar Odisha- 751002 [PAN: AABFO3512C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : N.R. Biswal, AR Revenue by : Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R.

Date of hearing : 08.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06 .10.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC Delhi hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A) dated

12.01.2026,DIN&Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084685232(1)

on the following grounds of appeal :-

SI. No Description Tax Effect relating to each Ground of appeal

1 For that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Rs. 3,78,465/- CIT(A) has erred in law, by disallowing the deduction of Rs. 9,02,513/- u/ 36(1)(va) towards employee’s contribution to PF and ESI without appreciating the fat that PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of iling the return and salary is disbursed in the subsequent month. Therefore, disallowing the deduction of Rs. 9,02,513/- u/s 36(1) (va) is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2 For that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Rs. 3,78,465/- CIT(A) has erred in law, by disallowing the deduction of Rs. 9,02,513/- u/s 36(1)(va) towards employees contribution to PF and ESI without appreciating the fact that salary is paid in consolidated basis and is a allowable deduction u/s 37(1). Therefore we request to delete the disallowance of Rs. 9,02,513/- considering the same is allowable expenditure u/s 3791).

3 For that, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) Rs. 28,841/- has erred in law, by disallowing Rs. 68,775/- considering the same as penalty when the said amount is paid for interest on delayed payment & administrative charges. Therefore we request to delete the disallowance of Rs. 68,775/- considering the same is allowable expenditure u/s 3791)

4 For that, the appellant may add, alter, amend any other grounds Rs. 4,07,306/-

of appeal at time of hearing.

Total tax effect Rs. Rs. 4,07,306/-

2.

Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.03.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 160,960/- the return of income was selected for scrutiny under CASS norms and issue had to be examined excess contribution to provident fund, suppression fund gratitude fund. Accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dated 29.06.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee, subsequently other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished reply in regard to the notices .The AO observed that there is violation of provision of section 36(1)(va) Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not deposited the employee’s contribution to ESI/PF within the due date as prescribed in the respective Act and prepare a chart which is clear from the page 8 & 9 of the Assessment Orderand it was brought into the knowledge of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 971,288/- after considering the entire submissions of the assessee and case law relied by the assessee. Aggrieved from the AO’s order the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) considering the

details available before him and relying on the various judgments , dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved from the above order the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT .

3.

The Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and he further submitted that the employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI was deposited before filing the return of income therefore, disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is unjustified and he further submitted that the salary is paid to the employees on consolidated basis and it has been allowed u/s 37(1) therefore, the contribution received from the employees should also have been allowed to the assessee and he referred to the case law relied before the lower authorities.

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of checkmate services (Pvt.) limited vs CIT-1 reported in (2022) 143 taxmann. Com 178 Supreme Court (SC) and he further submitted that the order of lower authorities should be upheld..

6.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire materials available on records and order of authorities below we noted that here the dispute is regarding delay deposited of the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, the Assessing Officers has prepared a

detailed analysis for y delay deposits in the assessment order page No. 8 & 9 and has made disallowance the Ld. CIT(A) has a confirmed the order of the AO by relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court. We noted that this issue has been settled in the judgments of checkmate Services (Pvt.)limited vs Pr.CIT-1 noted (Supra). Accordingly respectfully following the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any weight on the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 06.10.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Vice President Accountant Member

Dated: 06.10.2026 DC

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

In result,

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 →