MANISHA AGRI BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for all years as there was no appearance. For the revenue's appeal, the tribunal allowed it on the issue of disallowance of employees' PF contribution, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against orders for assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The revenue also filed an appeal for assessment year 2010-11.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction for employees' PF contribution not deposited by the due date specified in the relevant Acts. Whether the revenue can take inconsistent approaches for the same issue across different assessment years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 43B,Section 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing448 ITR 518 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / 493, 500 & 501/Hyd/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manisha Agri Biotech DCIT/ACIT Private Ltd. Vs. Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN :AACCM7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs. Manisha Agri Biotech DCIT, Circle-16(2) Hyderabad Private Ltd., Hyderabad [PAN :AACCM7108C] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee by: None राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT,DR सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09/10/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 23/10/2024 आदेश / ORDER Per Bench: These cross appeals are filed by Manisha Agri Biotech Private Ltd., (“the assessee”) and the revenue, feeling aggrieved with the separate orders passed for each year by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4 (“Ld. CIT(A)”) for the A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 all dated 18/10/2016 and for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 20/12/2016. Since the grounds filed in these appeals are similar in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under.
, 493, 500 & 501/Hyd/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011- 12 & 2012-13 :
As far as these appeals of the assessee are concerned, there was no appearance before us on behalf of the assessee. After hearing the Ld. DR and going through the orders of the revenue authorities, we did not find any irregularities in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the assessee.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee in 493, 500 & 501/Hyd/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively are dismissed.
I.T.A.No.45/Hyd/2017, A.Y.2010-11
Ground No.3 to 5 are general in nature and therefore do not require any specific adjudication.
Ground No.1 is related to direction given by the Ld.CIT(A) to the Ld.AO to adopt net profit @6.94% on the unaccounted sales. In the case of the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y.2008-09, 2010-11,2011-12 and 2012-13, the Ld.CIT(A) has taken similar view by holding that the percentage of net profit earned by the assessee in the respective years shall be added to the total income at the same percentage on the unaccounted sale also. However, the revenue has filed appeal only for A.Y.2010-11 and not filed any appeal for any other assessment year. In our considered view the revenue is not allowed to take inconsistent approach in the case of the same assessee for the same issue for different assessment years. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on this ground.
Ground No.2 relates to deletion of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). Ld.AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, as the assessee did not deposit employees’ contribution towards Provident fund (“employees’ contribution”) on or before the due date as mentioned in the relevant Acts.
On appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contended that the assessee had deposited the employees’ contribution before the due date for filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and the deduction is allowable u/s 43B of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) concurred with the submissions made by the assessee and accordingly deleted the addition made by the Ld.AO.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. Ld. DR relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., reported in 448 ITR 518 (SC), submitted that the employees’ contribution was required to be deposited on or before the due date as mentioned in the relevant Acts. Since the assessee did not deposit the employees’ contribution on or before the due date as mentioned in the relevant Acts, claim of the assessee is not allowable as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra). He, therefore, pleaded to quash the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the Revenue on this ground.
We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR in the absence of any appearance on behalf of the assessee and perused the material on record. For the A.Y. 2010-11, there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee had not deposited the employees’ contribution on or before the due date as mentioned in the relevant Acts. Under the similar issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has categorically held that if the employees’ contributions are not paid within the due dates specified under the respective Acts, assessee will not be entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Supra), we also hold that since the assessee did not deposit the employees’ contribution on or before the due date as mentioned in the relevant Acts, the claim of the assessee is not allowable. Accordingly, we quash the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the Revenue on this ground.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in 493, 500 & 501/Hyd/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively are dismissed and the appeal of the Revenue in for A.Y. 2010-11 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd October, 2024.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Suryansh Chawda vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Yash Shilawat vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pushpa Devi Verma vs. State Bank Of INDIA Through Its Chief ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Ayan Khan vs. Bandhan BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026