TUKARAM MAHADEV SURYAVANSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 4(5), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 785/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 July 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESIC due to delayed payment, even if made before the return filing due date, is no longer debatable in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited employee contributions to PF and ESIC after the due dates specified by those laws but before the due date for filing the income tax return. The CPC disallowed this amount, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited after the due dates under respective laws but before the income tax return filing due date, are allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Anil Topiwala
For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Hearing: 01.07.2024Pronounced: 11.07.2024

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Ld Addl./JACIT(A), Kanpur for the assessment year 2020-21.

2.

The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ADDL/JCIT(A) KANPUR-NFAC has erred in confirming the learned Assistant Director of Income-Tax CPC- Bangalore order disallowing the sum of Rs. 55,10,270/- u/s 36 (1)(VA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being employees contribution to provident fund and ESIC as per tax audit report deposited PF and ESIC laws but before the due date of filing of Income-tax return.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ADDL/JCIT(A) KANPUR-NFAC has erred in confirming the learned Assistant Director of Income-Tax CPC- Bangalore in disallowing Rs.55,10,270/- as per Tax Audit Report being employees contribution to the PF & ESIC which is deposited beyond the due date specified under PF & ESIC Laws but before the due date of filing Income Tax Return under Section 143(1) as mistake apparent from record.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter amend or delete any grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3. The facts, in brief, are, that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 15.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs.50,05,320/-. The CPC in its intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act enhanced the income of the assessee to an amount of Rs.1,05,15,590/- on account of disallowing the amount of Rs.55,10,270/- representing the late deposit of amounts pertaining to amount of employees contribution to PF and ESIC, despite the same having been paid before the due date of filing the return of income.

4. Being aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before the ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Kanpur, who vide impugned order dated 29.03.2024 following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. dated 12.10.2022 dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Being aggrieved with the above decision of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A), the assessee is in 2nd appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

LD AR submitted before us that the order passed by LD ADDL/JCIT(A), Kanpur is not correct, wherein he confirmed the order/ intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act passed by CPC Bengaluru, disallowing the sum of Rs.55,10,270/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act being employees contribution to PF & ESIC on the basis of payment of the same beyond the due dates specified under PF & ESIC laws, as mentioned in the audit report furnished along with return of income. A paper book in support of contentions raised also furnished before the bench. It was also challenged that the CPC cannot make addition on debatable issues. It was therefore prayed before the bench that the order passed by LD ADDL/JCIT(A), Kanpur & also passed by CPC, Bengaluru may kindly be cancelled & the returned income may kindly be accepted. 7. LD DR vehemently supported the orders passed by both the authorities & submitted that in the light of judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on the very same subject matter in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the appeal of the assesse may kindly be dismissed.

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 →