ALERT CARE & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WD9(1) (2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1601/MUM/2021Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 August 2022AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the relevant enactment is not eligible for deduction. This is an incorrect claim apparent from the return and thus liable for adjustment under Section 143(1).

What were the facts?

The assessee objected to the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC paid after the due date but before the return filing due date. This disallowance was made as an adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the respective Acts but before the return filing due date is an allowable deduction. Whether such a disallowance is a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR सुनवाई की तायीख /
For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Gagan Goyal, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal by the assessee was adjudicated on 30.08.2022 however same has been recalled by way of the order dated 10.07.2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 299/Mum/2023 and therefore, both the parties were again heard on the ground raised in the appeal. The relevant grounds of appeal are reproduced as under:

Alert Care & Construction Services Pvt. Ltd. “The appellant objects to the order u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 16/10/2019 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax. CPC, Bangalore [AO] for the aforesaid assessment year on the following amongst other grounds:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in disallowing employee's contribution of PF and ESIC paid after the due date under the respective Acts but paid within the due date of filing the return.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in disallowing employee's contribution of PF and ESIC as this is not an permissible adjustment u/s 143(1)(a).

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind, delete or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.”

2.

We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in-dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The issue in dispute involved in the appeal is in respect of disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the relevant enactment. The Ld. Computerized Processing Centre (CPC) made adjustment for the said disallowance in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act on the basis of the reporting by the assessee in the tax audit report filed along with the return of income.

3.

Before us, it was claimed by the assessee that since disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI was earlier being allowed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and therefore, disallowance was a debatable nature and it should not be adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act.

4 We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that employees contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the relevant enactment is not eligible for deduction

Alert Care & Construction Services Pvt. Ltd. u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. This interpretation of the provision of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is effective, since its inception; therefore, issue is no longer debatable. In terms of section 143(1) (a) (ii) of the Act, any incorrect claim which is apparent from any information the return of income, is liable to be adjusted u/s 143(1) of the Act. Since in the case, the claim of employee’s contribution paid to PF/ESI after due date under the relevant Act is apparent from the information in tax audit report filed alongwith the return of income and thus, the claim is incorrect. The Ld. CIT (A) is correct in upholding the order of the Ld. CPC in making the said adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the same. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2023.

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 →