SMITHS MEDICAL INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL PROCESSSIN CENTRE, BANGALORE , JUDICIAL ASSESSING OFFICER: WD 21(3) (2) , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 156/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 February 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL ( (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that contributions to provident fund and employees state insurance paid after the due date are not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction was rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for ESIC and PF payments of Rs. 6,14,521/-. These payments were made after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. The Assessing Officer made an adjustment under Section 143(1) disallowing this deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether ESIC and PF payments made after the due date are allowable as a deduction. The applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. to the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh,DR
Hearing: 19/02/2024Pronounced: 20/02/2024

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh,DR Date of Hearing : 19/02/2024 Date of pronouncement : 20/02/2024 ORDER

PER : OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2019-20, raising following grounds:-

M/s. Smiths Medical India Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Smiths Medical India Pvt. Ltd. “1. Addition of ESIC and PF payments of Rs. 6,14,521/ 1. Addition of ESIC and PF payments of Rs. 6,14,521/ 1. Addition of ESIC and PF payments of Rs. 6,14,521/- made before the due date of filing of Return as per the provisions before the due date of filing of Return as per the provisions before the due date of filing of Return as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2.

This appeal was adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate This appeal was adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate This appeal was adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) on 27.07.2022. However, in Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) on 27.07.2022. However, in Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) on 27.07.2022. However, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Service Services Pvt. Ltd. in Civil appeal No. appeal No.2833 of 2016 passed on 12.10.2022 passed on 12.10.2022, on being a miscellaneous application , on being a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal recalled its decision dated filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal recalled its decision dated filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal recalled its decision dated 27.07.2022 in order passed in miscellaneous application 27.07.2022 in order passed in miscellaneous application 27.07.2022 in order passed in miscellaneous application No.230/M/2023 No.230/M/2023 dated dated 05.01.2024, 05.01.2024 for for deciding deciding afresh. afresh. Accordingly, this appeal has been heard Accordingly, this appeal has been heard by us.

3.

In the grounds raised In the grounds raised, the assessee is mainly aggrieved the assessee is mainly aggrieved with the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Income with the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Income with the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) amounting to Rs.6,14,521/ Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) amounting to Rs.6,14,521/ Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) amounting to Rs.6,14,521/- being any sum received being any sum received from employees as contribution to from employees as contribution to provident fund/employees state provident fund/employees state insurance but not paid to the insurance but not paid to the respective fund before the due date prescribed under the respective fund before the due date prescribed under the respective fund before the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts.

4.

Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee and Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee and Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore this appeal therefore this appeal is decided ex-parte for the assessee after parte for the assessee after hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative and hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative and hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative and perusal of the material on record. perusal of the material on record.

5.

We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Service Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that any amount has held that any amount

M/s. Smiths Medical India Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Smiths Medical India Pvt. Ltd. of contribution of the employees towards provident fund or contribution of the employees towards provident fund or contribution of the employees towards provident fund or employees state insurance paid after due date under the employees state insurance paid after due date under the employees state insurance paid after due date under the respective funds is not allowable as deduction under section respective funds is not allowable as deduction under section respective funds is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 36(1)(va) of the Act. It is undisputed that the said amount of undisputed that the said amount of Rs.6,14,521/- has b has been paid after the due date under the een paid after the due date under the respective Act. The assessee respective Act. The assessee had claimed the said deduction in claimed the said deduction in view of the decisions of the Tribunals and Hon’ble High Courts view of the decisions of the Tribunals and Hon’ble High Courts view of the decisions of the Tribunals and Hon’ble High Courts prior to the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in prior to the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in prior to the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Servi the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) ces Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and therefore said contentions of the assessee are liable to be rejected. said contentions of the assessee are liable to be rejected. said contentions of the assessee are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/ 20/02/2024.

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 →