Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's return of income was processed under Section 143(1), and an addition of Rs. 67,39,443/- was made for delayed payment of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI, although paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was binding, and since the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in this regard was in favor of the Revenue, the assessee's case was not debatable. The cited case laws by the assessee were not applicable.
Key Issues
Disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date but before the due date of filing the return of income, and whether Section 43B overrides Section 36(1)(va).
Sections Cited
143(1), 36(1)(va), 43B, 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT “DB” BENCH, SURAT
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT “DB” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.776/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Lokendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of E-103, Rajhans View, Rajhans Income Tax, Campus, B/h. Rajhans Cinema, Surat Circle-2(1)(1), Hazira Road, Pal Surat-395009 Surat [PAN No.BASPS9587B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.04.2026 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai on 25.10.2023 for A.Y. 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of confirming action of the assessing officer, CPC in to issue notice u/s. 143 (1) (a) (i) for proposed adjustment towards disallowance of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in not accepting a response with disagreement with the proposed addition and mentioning the reason for the disagreement with the proposed addition. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in assessing income of your appellant, as Rs. 1,38,95,920/- as against the returned income of Rs. 70,96,480/-
ITA No. 776/Srt/2024 Lokendra Kumar Singh vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2019-20 - 2– by adding the amount of delayed payment of employee's contribution, but paid before due date u/s. 139(1) of ITA, towards PF/ESI amounting to Rs. 67,39,443/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in wrongly interpreted the provision of Sec. 43B of ITA, being the non-obstacle clause and failed to appreciate the fact that Sec. 43B overrides the provision of Sec. 36(1) (va) of ITA. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in failed miserably to understand the meaning of Contribution according to the provisions of EPF scheme,1952 r.w.s Income tax Act and Rules. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in not allowed the deduction of employee's contribution of PF/ESI paid within the due date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of ITA. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in not taking into consideration plethora of judicial pronouncements including Hon’ble Apex court on same subject matter relied upon by your appellant. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 70,96,480/-. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) on 15.05.2020 determining total income at Rs. 1,38,95,920/-. In the said intimation order under Section 143(1), the CPC Bengaluru made the disallowance of Rs. 67,39,443/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
ITA No. 776/Srt/2024 Lokendra Kumar Singh vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2019-20 - 3– 5. There is a delay of 208 days for which the assessee has filed the delay condonation application and the reason given therein appears to be genuine. Hence, the delay is condoned.
The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO CPC in assessing income of the assessee as Rs. 1,38,95,920/- as against the returned income of Rs. 70,96,480/- adding the amount of delayed payment of employees’ contribution but paid before due date under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act towards PF/ESI amounting to Rs. 67,39,443/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue was sub judiced and was not settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the assessee’s case was prior to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Poonam Sabharwal vs. ITO (ITA No. 1183&1182/Del/2025 order dated 28.11.2025).
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2023 being 448 ITR 518 and the said order emerged from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court which is a Jurisdictional High Court and was a binding decision at the relevant time of the present assessee’s case. Therefore, it was not a debatable issue as relates to the assessee’s jurisdiction. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR will not come to rescue the assessee’s case as the
ITA No. 776/Srt/2024 Lokendra Kumar Singh vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2019-20 - 4–
Jurisdictional High Court has already passed the decision against the said issue in favour of the Revenue.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 06/04/2026
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 06/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat
Date of dictation 01.04.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 01.04.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .04.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 06.04.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 06.04.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 06.04.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………