CARE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) NFAC-DELHI, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CPC had no jurisdiction to make such an adjustment under section 143(1) as there were High Court decisions in favor of the assessee prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendment. Furthermore, the amendment was not retrospective, and for AY 2018-19, the disallowance was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee made PF/ESIC contributions after the due date but before the return filing date. The CPC disallowed this amount under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the CPC can disallow delayed PF/ESIC contributions under section 143(1) and whether the Finance Act, 2021 amendment is retrospective.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 2.8.2021 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19.
The issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 23,79,799/- under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act pertaining to PF/ESIC contribution paid after due date made by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the order under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act passed by CPC, Bangalore disallowed the aforesaid sum.
Against the above order the assessee appealed before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) noted that PF&ESIC have been deposited after the due date but before the date of filing of return. However, learned CIT(A) upheld the action by referring the amendment in the Act.
2 Care Facilities Management Services P.Ltd.
Against this order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record. I find that prior to the amendment there were Hon'ble Bombay High Court decisions which laid down that deposit of the sum up to the date of filing of return is sufficient compliance. The Finance Act, 2021 has provided an explanation in this regard according to which such sum paid after due date were to be disallowed. When this fact is taken into account by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above said adjustment can fall under the category of 143(1) prima-facie adjustment. Hence, I hold that CPC has no jurisdiction of adjustment u/s. 143(1) on this issue where admittedly there were decisions in favour of the assessee from the Hon’ble High Courts and the legislature has brought in an Explanation by Finance Act, 2021 in this regard subsequently. Moreover, as regards, merits of the case the aforesaid explanation was added by Finance Act, 2021 and the said explanation in my considered opinion cannot be said to be retrospective. The assessment year during the present case is AY 2018-19 and is prior to the said amendment/insertion. Hence, on merits also, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee as before the amendment, there were catena of decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in favor of assessee on the said issue. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the orders of the authority below are set aside.
In the result, appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2022.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026