SEG AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 988/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 July 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund paid beyond the due date is settled by the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case. However, the AO was directed to re-verify the returns and consider disallowances only for amounts paid beyond the due date.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its original and revised returns of income for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued an intimation under section 143(1) and later a final assessment order under section 143(3), raising a demand. The primary dispute concerns the disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund paid beyond the due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund paid after the due date is permissible. The AO was directed to verify the exact amount paid beyond the due date for disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB,Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 154,Section 36(1)(va)

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, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Raipuria, CA, Shri Tamil Selvan .S, Addl. CIT

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order passed by Ld.CIT(A)-15, Bangalore dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee filed its original return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 30/11/2018 declaring loss of Rs.1,71,59,240/-. The assessee computed its income at Rs.53,14,51,087/- under section 115JB of the Act and claimed a refund of Rs.1,90,220/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 28.03.2019 declaring loss of Rs.9,70,18,147/-. The assessee computed its deemed total income of Rs.53,14,51,087 under section 115JB of the Act and claimed refund of Rs.1,90,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee by the Ld.AO.

2.2 It is submitted that an intimation, dated 02.10.2019 was issued under section 143(1) of the Act to the assessee, wherein inter alia, the deemed total income of the assessee was computed at Rs.64,23,20,776/- and a demand levied at Rs.2,94,80,416/-. In response to the aforesaid intimation u/s. 143(1), the assessee filed response on the e-filing portal on 28/11/2019. Further, the assessee filed rectification application dated 12/12/2019 under section 154 of the Act, however no action was taken. It is also submitted that, the rectification application has not been disposed-off as on date.

2.3 The Ld.AO further issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act on 31/12/2020 and dated 13/01/2021 in response to which submissions were made by the assessee. The Ld.AO subsequently issued the final assessment order under section Page 3 of 143(3) of the Act, dated 28/09/2021 wherein a demand of Rs.3,55,88,940/- was raised on the assessee.

2.4 The only issue that is contested by the assessee in the present appeal is in respect of the disallowance of Rs.94,07,117/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, being the employees' contribution to provident fund/ superannuation fund paid beyond the due date as prescribed in the respective law.

3.

The above issue is now settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2023) 443 ITR 518 which has been followed by the Ld.CIT(A) while considering the appeal of the assessee. However, the Ld.AO is directed once again to verify the column 20(b) of the returns filed by the assessee and to consider only such amount for disallowances, that is made beyond the due date. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →