Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, proprietor of M/s. Prime Rock Wool, filed returns declaring income. The AO/CPC disallowed Rs. 3,93,049/- for belated deposit of employee's PF/ESI contribution. The assessee's appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) rightly followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, which became binding. The powers of CIT(A) are coterminous with AO, and the orders merged, confirming the authorities' actions.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contribution is justified when deposited belatedly, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 154, 250, 36(1)(va)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
Appellant by : Mr. Devang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 11/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M:
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 24.01.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s. 154 dated 07.03.2024 by CPC, Bangalore are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal 2. The impugned order passed u/s. 154 and confirmed by the CIT(A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and the facts on record, hence the same kindly be quashed.
3. Rs. 3,93,049/- The Id. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance/addition made by the AO of Rs. 3,93,049/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The disallowance/ addition so made and confirmed by the CIT (A), being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full.
The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s. Prime Rock Wool and derives income from business as contractors carrying Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services. The assessee filed ROI on dated 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 58, 45,061/-. However, the AO/CPC alleged that the assessee deposited the employee's contribution towards PF/ESI belatedly as per respective Acts applicable. Accordingly the AO/CPC made the impugned disallowances of Rs. 3, 93,049/- u/s. 36(1) of the Act. Against the said intimation, the assessee filed application u/s. 154 on DT. 28.10.2024 however the same was also rejected vide the impugned order DT. 07.03.2024 holding that view of Checkmate, the CPC rightly made the adjustment u/s. 143(1) on DT. 06.02.2020 by holding that the employee's contribution towards PF/ESI is governed by the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us.
We have gone through the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide dated: 27- 09-2019 issued by the CPC, Bengaluru, order u/s. 154 of the Act passed by the AO vide dated 07.03.2024, order of the ld. CIT (A) u/s. 250 vide dated 24.01.2025 and Dinesh Kumar Agarwal submission of the assessee along with grounds taken. The issue involved is a narrow compass i.e. whether the actions of the CPC, Bengaluru and the AO are justified or not, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178.
4. It is observed that first time when the return of the assessee was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s. 143(1) of the Act no doubt the position was in favour of the assessee and disallowance made was unjustified and at that point of time. But later on, the issue under consideration was discussed and a law was declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 vide order dated 12.10.2022, was binding on all the authorities below and even this tribunal. The order passed by the AO and the ld. CIT (A) were dated 07.03.2024 and 24.01.2025 respectively, i.e. after the law pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 12.10.2022 hence, we do not see any perversity in the order of the AO and ld. CIT(A) as they rightly followed the law pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Secondly, the powers of the ld. CIT (A) are coterminous with that of the AO and for all the legal and technical purposes the authority of the First Appellate Authority are parallel and superior to the AO i.e. what an AO can do the same can be done by the ld. CIT(A) also. In view of this, the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the order of the AO passed u/s. 154 of the Act get merged with the order of ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the actions of the authorities below relying on Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178.