ACIT-13(1) (2), MUMBAI vs. OOMMEN CHACKALYIL CHACKO, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1620/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 October 2022AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case held that Section 43B does not apply to employees' PF/ESI contributions, and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted the disallowance made by the AO regarding employees' contribution to PF and ESIC. The CIT(A) had followed earlier judgments.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC made by the AO is justified, considering the applicability of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) in light of recent Supreme Court pronouncements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

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, C BENCH, MUMBAI

order : 28.10.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 24.04.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the intimation/order, dated 23.11.2020 passed by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

1.

Assessment Year: 2019-2020 2. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal pertains to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the decisions of the Tribunal. However, recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1: 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2016, held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employees contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue in the appeal is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving the Appellant/Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the issue is being remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) all the rights and contentions are left open. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal stand disposed off.

3.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28.10.2022.

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 →