ASHOK KUMAR MAGO,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7, PUNE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was correct based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The statutory due date for payment of ESI and PF contributions prevails over the due date for filing the return.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against disallowances of ESI and PF contributions made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. These contributions were credited after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). The assessee did not appear for the hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether ESI and PF contributions paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return are allowable as a deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046451044(1) and 1059552777(1), dated 22.10.2022 and dated 10.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2 ITA.Nos.500 & 501/PUN./2024
Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action making sec.36(1)(va) disallowance(s)/addition(s) of ESI & PF contribution(s) of Rs.1,25,52,130/- and Rs.2,10,40,956/- assessment year-wise, respectively, since credited beyond the due date as per the corresponding statutes; but before the due date of filing sec.139(1) returns. Hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd., & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors. [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) has already settled the law in Revenue’s favour that it is the former “due date” which would prevail over the latter one in such an instance. Rejected accordingly.
These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.500 & 501/ PUN./2024 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 07.06.2024.
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 →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026