MAKSAT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMANAssessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Maksat Technologies Pvt. Ltd., E-13, Ground Floor & Basement, Block No. B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, South Delhi, Delhi Vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi PAN :AACCM7831L (Appellant)
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, 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/250/2021-22/1037275863(1), dated
26.11.2021 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Assessee by None
Department by Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
20.01.2025
Date of pronouncement
20.01.2025
2 | P a g e
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We thus proceed ex-parte against the appellate/assessee. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities herein have invoked section 36(1)(va) ESI/PF disallowance amounting to Rs.10,55,968/- in the CPC’s section 143(1) processing as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Suffice to say, the instant issue hardly requires our detailed adjudication in light of the fact that hon’ble apex court’s in recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC) has already settled the issue against the assessee and in department’s favour that such an employee’s contribution to ESI/PF ought to be credited on or before the due date given in the corresponding statute than that of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the case-law Rohan Korgaonkar Vs DCIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 321] (Bom) has further concluded that such a disallowance could indeed be made in a processing under section 143(1)(a) of the Act as well. We thus see no merit in the assessee’s sole substantive grievance in principle. 3 | P a g e
Next comes equally important aspect of assessee’s compliance to the foregoing statutory provision going by the actual date of salary disbursement which has not been adjudicated by both the learned authorities. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant grievance to this limited extent to the learned Assessing Officer for its afresh appropriate factual verification subject to a rider that the assessee shall itself plead and prove at his own risk and responsibility that it had complied with the foregoing provision going by the actual date of monthly salary disbursement in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th January, 2025 (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 20th January, 2025. RK/-