Loading judgment…
Facts
The AO-CPC disallowed Rs. 1,27,67,220/- under section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of ESI/EPF contributions. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful as the CIT(A) followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. The assessee then approached the ITAT, arguing that deposits were made before the due date of filing the return and citing an EPF circular for Covid-19 related relaxations.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's primary argument before the CIT(A) focused solely on deposits made before the return filing due date, without raising the issue of Covid-19 related relaxations under the EPF Act. Following the binding judgment of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the delayed deposit of ESI/EPF contributions, even if made before the due date of filing the income tax return, is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 36(1)(va)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA
(Assessment Year 2021-22) J M D Services Private Limited, Plot No. 60, Nandan Puri, Maurya Path, Khajpura, Bihar - 800014 [PAN: AACCJ7420N] ..............…...…………….... Appellant vs. Joint Commissioner, Pune, Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Pune - 412303 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Supriya Sharma, CA Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 23.04.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 29.04.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 19.03.2024 for AY 2021-22.
1.1. In this case, the Ld. AO-CPC disallowed Rs. 1,27,67,220/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delayed deposit of ESI/EPF contribution. Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed since the Ld. CIT(A) followed the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. reported in 448 ITR 518 (SC) and held the issue to be squarely covered against the assessee.
J M D Services Pvt. Ltd. 2. Following the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds of appeal which are detailed and argumentative. However, in brief, the assessee has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the amounts in question were deposited before the due date of filing of return.
2.1 The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that a circular had been issued by the EPF organisation that during the lockdown period (Covid-19 Pandemic) there would be no levy of penalty in case of delayed payment. On this ground, the Ld. AR argued that during such extraordinary circumstances, a small delay could be permitted.
2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of Ld. CIT(A).
We have carefully considered the submission and the document before us, we find that before the Ld. CIT(A) only one ground was taken and that was to say that since the payment had been made in the government account before the due date of filing of return hence the same should be allowed. Thus, it is clear that the assessee did not agitate the ground of possible allowability of payment on account of any relaxation in the respective EPF Act on account of Covid-19. In any case, we respectfully follow the binding judgment in the case of Checkmate Service (P) Ltd. (supra) and uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 29.04.2025