RAMKRIPAL DWIVEDI,INDORE vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BANGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 294/IND/2023Status: HeardITAT Indore03 May 2024AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was justified as per the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, effective from Finance Act, 2021. The adjustment was also permissible under Section 143(1)(a)(iv).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order confirming a disallowance of Rs. 78,55,838/- made for delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC. The disallowance was made under Section 143(1) and confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC paid after the due date is permissible under the amended provisions of the Income-tax Act, and if such adjustment can be made under Section 143(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. & AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.05.2024Pronounced: 03.05.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 28.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)’’] which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment passed by C.P.C., Bangalore [“AO”] u/s 143(1) for A.Y. 2021-22, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds :-

1.

The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order, which is bad-in- law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. Page 1 of 3

Shri Ramkripal Dwivedi, Indore.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the adjustment u/s 143(1) in respect of PF and ESIC, whereas, such disallowance, in any case, could not have been done u/s 143(1). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 78,55,838/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment of PF and ESIC without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case records perused.

3.

The controversy in present case relates to a disallowance of Rs. 78,55,838/- made by AO on account of employees’ contribution to P.F./E.S.I. paid by assessee after due dates prescribed under P.F./E.S.I. laws. Ld. AR for assessee fairly agreed that the present case relates to AY 2021-22 for which the law has already been amended by introducing following provisions in Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 through Finance Act, 2021:

“Explanation 2 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the “due date” under the clause;” “Explanation 5. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies” Further, the impugned disallowance is very much covered in section 143(1)(a)(iv) which empowers the AO to make adjustment for disallowance of Shri Ramkripal Dwivedi, Indore. expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit-report but not taken into account in computing the total income in return. Therefore, the grievances raised by assessee in grounds do not have any merit. Ld. DR for Revenue too supported this view. Being so, the assessee does not deserve any relief and this appeal fails.

4.

Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 03.05.2024.

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 →