MOHD RIZWAN ANSARI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 53/AGR/2025Status: FixedITAT Agra24 June 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the disallowed amount included employer contributions. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a government contractor, filed their income tax return declaring a total income. The CPC disallowed a sum of Rs. 55,62,245/- for delayed payment of employees' contribution towards PF/ESI.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date is justified, and if the amount includes employer contribution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 250,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘SMC’: AGRA

For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. DR
Hearing: 19/05/2025Pronounced: 24/06/2025

O R D E R [ PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-6, Chennai in Appeal No. 10006/2017- 18 for Assessment Year 2018-19 dated 31/12/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) arising out of the order passed u/s 143(1) dated 08.01.2020.

Mohd Rizwan Ansaril vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Govt. contractor runs business under proprietorship M/s R. R. Engg. Com. The return of income was filed on 15.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.13,00,020/- which was processed vide order u/s 143(1) dated 08.01.2020 wherein CPC has disallowed delayed payment on account of employees contribution towards PF/ESI of Rs.55,62,245/-

3.

Against such intimation order the assessee has preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal. Thus, the present appeal is filed before the Tribunal. Assessee in the grounds of appeal has claimed that the amount of employees contribution towards PF/ESI was made much before the filing of return and, therefore, no disallowance should be made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. He further submitted that this amount also includes the employer contribution towards PF/ESI and the figure mentioned in the audit report in column 20(b) has wrongly been stated at Rs.55,62,245/- which actually included amount of employees contribution and employer contribution both, thus, deduction to the extent of employer’s contribution to such funds deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supports the orders of the lower authorities and submits that the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1 in Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the payment of employees

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 →