SPARK AUTOMETAL COMP P LTD,SATARA vs. CPC, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, which made such disallowances mandatory, was not applicable to the assessment year 2019-20. The disallowance was therefore not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a one-day delay, which was condoned. The core issue was the disallowance of PF/ESI payments made after the due date but before the return filing due date.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of PF/ESI contributions paid after the due date but before the return filing date is justified for AY 2019-20, considering the applicability of recent amendments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18-08-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘NFAC’) for assessment year 2019-20.
We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 01 day. Upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 01 day is condoned.
The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the NFAC is justified in confirming the disallowance made by the CPC on account of PF/ESI in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We note that the CPC, Bengaluru passed order u/s. 143(1) of the Act proposed the adjustment of Rs.1,40,048/- on account of PF/ESI being the payments made after the due date. We note that the NFAC by following the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act found the submissions of assessee regarding deposit of employees contribution before the due date of filing return of income not acceptable. We note that the said amendment is applicable from 1st April, 2021 and since the assessment under consideration is A.Y. 2019-20, the amendment is not applicable on the facts in hand. There is no dispute by the NFAC about the payment of PF/ESI contribution before the due date of filing of return of income. Therefore, the impugned passed by the NFAC is not justified and the assessee is entitled to get deduction. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th July, 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 →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026