SATENDRA SHRIVASTAV,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5(3)(3), G B NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 533/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 April 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of delayed PF/ESI deposits, affirming that such contributions paid beyond the statutory due date are to be added back to the assessee's income, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in *Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.*. However, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine and decide the issue of TDS refund as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21. The primary issue concerned an addition made under section 36(1)(va) read with 2(24)(x) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI, which was upheld by the CIT(A) based on the *Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.* judgment. Other grounds involved interest, fees, and TDS refund adjustments.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is admissible as a deduction; legitimacy of levied interest and fees; and proper adjustment of TDS credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234F,Section 143(1),Section 250

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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.04.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2019-20) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Satendra Shrivastav, vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(3), Office No.7, 1st Floor, Mahindra Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh), (PAN : COKPS5551J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.04.2024 Date of Order : 16.04.2024

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre both dated 19.11.2022 for the assessment years 2019-20 & 2020-21. 2. Since the issues are common and connected, these are being disposed of by this common order. common except the difference in amount of addition, hence grounds of appeal in AY 2019-20 are reproduced for the sake of brevity as under :-

“l. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below have not followed the proper procedure prescribed by the law before imposing tax on assessee. The action of authorities below is wrong, illegal, bad at law, misconceived and unjustified therefore it should be quashed.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the authorities below have erred in confirming the addition of Rs.29,04,705/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, being on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI as per the audit report without considering all the available facts in this case. Therefore, the action of authorities below is wrong, illegal, bad at law misconceived and unjustified, therefore it should be quashed.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below have erred in imposing the total interest and fees of Rs.1,29,050/- which is sum Rs.15,474/- u/s 234A, Rs.82,528/- u/s 234B, Rs.26,048/- u/s 234C and fee of Rs.5,000/- u/s 234F of the Income Tax Act. The action of authorities below is wrong, illegal, bad at law, misconceived and unjustified therefore it should be quashed.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below have erred in adjusting the total available TDS credit of Rs.5,83,203/- against the total tax demand of Rs.12,28,101/- and raised a demand of Rs.6,44,900/- vide order passed u/s 143(1)/250 of the act whereas as per the filed income tax return there was a refund of Rs.3,85,420/-. The action of authorities below is wrong, illegal, bad at law, misconceived and unjustified therefore it should be quashed.”

4.

The main issue involved is against the addition made by the AO u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI, which was sustained by the ld.

3 & 533/DEL/2023 CIT (A) referring to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before me. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records.

6.

I find that the issue on merits is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 wherein it has been held that if employee contribution of provident fund and ESI paid beyond due date as specified under the relevant Act then the same has to be added back to the income of the assessee. Respectfully following the precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same.

7.

Apropos issue of TDS refund, the AO is directed to look into the same and decide as per law. Our above order applied mutatis mutandis to both the assessment 8. years.

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 →