Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's ESIC/PF deduction claim of Rs. 46,42,955/- for Assessment Year 2018-19 was disallowed by the lower authorities. The disallowance was made because the contributions were not deposited before the 'due' date specified in the corresponding statutes, despite potentially being deposited before the filing of the Income Tax Return under section 139(1).
Held
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), affirmed that the 'due date' for such deposits is strictly that prescribed by the respective statutes. However, noting the absence of detailed factual verification by the lower authorities, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of all relevant facts, placing the onus on the assessee to prove compliance.
Key Issues
Whether ESIC/PF contributions deposited after the statutory due date but before the Income Tax Return filing date are deductible; and the necessity for thorough factual verification by tax authorities in such cases.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065999991(1) dated 25.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
We note at the outset that both the learned lower authorities herein have disallowed the assessee’s ESIC/PF deduction claim of Rs.46,42,955/- for not having got credited/deposited in the prescribed account before the “due” date in the corresponding statute(s) than that of filing of section 139(1) return. Suffice to say, hon’ble apex court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC) has already settled the issue in department’s favour that the due date in such an instance has to be specified under the corresponding statute(s) only. We thus reject the assessee’s first and foremost legal contention in very terms.
It further transpires that there is no detailed discussion indicating the learned Assessing Officer to have verified all the relevant facts regarding above stated compliance in assessment order of the CIT(A)-NFAC or in the lower appellate proceedings. We thus leave it upon the Assessing to carry out necessary afresh verification as per law subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.