MURALEEDHARAN KALATHIL,COCHIN vs. ACIT, KOCHI

ITA 449/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2020-21Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the due dates for ESI & PF contributions are as per the respective Acts, not the return filing due date, citing the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the disallowance could not be made during section 143(1)(a) processing, referencing a Bombay High Court ruling.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of ESI & PF contributions made before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1). The assessee argued that compliance was made within the stipulated period and that such disallowance was not permissible under section 143(1)(a) processing.

What were the issues?

Whether ESI & PF contributions must be paid by the due dates under the respective Acts or the return filing due date, and whether disallowance for non-compliance can be made during section 143(1)(a) processing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1046398919(1) dated 20.10.2022 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte against the assessee.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal pleads that both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in invoking section 36(1)(v) ESI & PF disallowance in question despite the fact that it had complied with all the 2 Muraleedharan Kalathil relevant provisions before the “due” date of filing section 139(1) return and als

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(v)

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(v) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →