SMT SYSTEMS LLP,PUNE vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE -2, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1247/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 September 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the due date for deposit of ESIC contributions, as per the relevant statute, is the determining factor for deductibility, not the due date for filing the return. The landmark decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 1,34,087 made by the AO for delay in depositing employees' ESIC contributions. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether delay in deposit of employees' ESIC contributions beyond the statutory due date leads to disallowance of the deduction. Whether adjustments made under Section 143(1) were permissible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 17.09.2024Pronounced: 27.09.2024

Din and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062539367(1), dated 13.03.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

“The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law,

2 ITA.No.1247/PUN./2024

1.

The learned AO erred in making addition of Rs.1,34,087/- towards delay in deposit of Employees Contribution to ESIC under section 36(1)(va) and the learned CIT Appeals erred in confirming the same.

2. The learned AO has erred in making addition towards delay in deposit of Employees Contribution to ESIC and in treating the same as taxable business income of assessee without considering assessee's submission and the learned CIT Appeals has erred in confirming the same. 3. The addition has been made/confirmed without considering the relevant applicable judgments of appellate forum. 4. The intimation has made certain adjustments which are not permissible under section 143(1) of the Act, therefore intimation issued under section 143(1) is bad in law and the adjustment is beyond jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. 5. There is error in computation of tax liability by CPC which is prayed to be corrected. 6. The CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing assessee's appeal by not condoning delay in filing of appeal. 7. The learned CIT Appeals erred in dismissing assessee's appeal without affording it an adequate opportunity of being heard and also erred in not considering merits of the case.

3 ITA.No.1247/PUN./2024

8.

The assessee prays before your honour to afford it and allow an opportunity of being heard and on merits of the case before the CIT Appeal.

9.

The assessee hereby requests for allowing any other relief as available under the law.

10.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and or withdraw any or all above grounds of appeal.”

3.

Learned counsel is fair enough at the outset that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) has already settled the issue in department’s favour that it is not the “due” date of filing sec.139(1) return, but that under the corresponding statute, which forms the clinching criteria for the purpose of credit of the corresponding ESI & PF dues in the prescribed account. We appreciate this fair stand and reject the assessee’s sole substantive grievance in very terms.

Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.09.2024.

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 →