DHRUV CORPORATE(HR) SOLUTION P. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 209/AHD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 September 2022AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that belated payments of Employees' PF and ESIC contributions beyond the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) are not eligible for deduction under Section 43B, even if deposited before the tax return filing due date.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in payroll services, filed its return of income declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,31,641/- for belated payments of PF and ESIC.

What were the issues?

Whether belated payments of employee contributions to PF and ESIC are allowable as a deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.

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, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.09.2022Pronounced: 30.09.2022

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 01.08.2021 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 01.08.20212 for AY 2018-19 by NFAC Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.6,31,641/- made by AO u/s. 36(1)(va) is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.

2.1 The Ld. NFAC has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.6,31,641/- made by AO u/s. 36(1)(va) on the ground of belated payments.

2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs.6,31,641/- made by AO u/s.36(1)(va) on the ground of belated payments.

3.1 Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, both the lower authorities have failed to appreciate that the EPF contributions of Rs.5,94,074/- & Rs.6,02,670/- and that of ESIC of Rs.7,200/- &

Page 2 of 3 Rs.9,344/- were deposited within the prescribed time limits under the respective laws so that the same were not belated payments.

It is therefore prayed that the additions upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted or it may be reduced.”

3.

The assessee is engaged in providing placement, maintaining payroll on behalf of the clients thereby reducing the compliance burden of the client companies. The assessee e-filed return of income on 29.08.2018 declaring total income at Rs.nil. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,31,641/- in respect of payments of PF and ESIC.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice was duly served to the assessee but the same was returned back with the remark that the “assessee left the premises”. No new address was provided to the Registry. Hence, proceeding on the basis of the submissions of the assessee reproduced in the order of CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. DR submitted that the issue related to belated payments of PF and ESIC is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 41 taxamann.com 100 (Guj). The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Limited (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Delhi).

7.

I have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has categorically observed that Employees Contribution to the EPF and ESIC deposit’s beyond the due date prescribed under Section 36(10(va) of the Act would not be eligible for deduction under Section 43B of the Act even after depositing before the due date of filing of tax return. The issue contested by the assessee in the present

Page 3 of 3 appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court against the assessee. Hence, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 30th day of September, 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 →