M/S.KERALA CARS P.LTD,COCHIN vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), COCHIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 154/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial 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 dismissed the assessee's appeals, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and the Bombay High Court decision in Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT. These decisions held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable if employee contributions are not paid within the statutory due date.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd., challenged disallowances of Rs. 42,03,934/- each for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The disallowance pertained to employee contributions to PF & ESI, which the assessee claimed to have paid before the due date for filing the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is attracted if employee contributions to PF & ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, but not before the statutory due date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 139(1),Section 143(1)(a)(v),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 19.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench These assessee’s twin appeals arise against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre , Delhi [CIT(A)] in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as under: - DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 154/Coch/2023 2018-19 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 29.12.2022 23/1048344724(1) 2 155/Coch/2023 2019-20 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 29.12.2022 23/1048344764(1)

Heard both parties. Case files perused.

& 155/Coch/2023 Kerala Cars Pvt. Ltd.

2.

The assessee’s identical sole substantive ground raised in both these appeals challenges the correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action making section 36(1)(va) PF & ESI disallowance/ addition of Rs. 42,03,934/- each on the ground that it had failed to credit the said dues regarding employees’ contribution in the prescribed account within the “due” date of the said statute only. Learned counsel’s vehement contention before us is that the assessee had duly complied with the relevant statutory provisions before the “due” date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Act.

3.

The Revenue's case on the other hand is that the assessee's instant sole substantive ground is no more res integra as per [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT going against the assessee.

4.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel has raised yet another argument that both the lower authorities have invoked section 143(1)(a)(v) "processing" disallowance than by going regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

5.

We note in this factual backdrop that case law Rohan Korgaonkar vs. DCIT [2024] 298 Taxman 159 (Bom.) had already rejected the assessee's very stand thereby deciding the issue in Revenue's favour. Rejected accordingly.

6.

These assessee's twin appeals & 155/Coch/2023 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 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 →