VISHWARANJAN PRASAD SINGH,BHOPAL vs. DCIT ,CPC, BANGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 139/IND/2022Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 February 2023AY 2019-20Bench: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case, which disallowed delayed payments of PF and ESI after the statutory due date.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income tax return for AY 2019-20 was processed under Section 143(1), resulting in an addition of Rs. 2,87,46,530/-. This addition was made due to delayed deposit of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESI.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) is permissible under Section 143(1) processing, and if the disallowance is justified in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 06.02.2023Pronounced: 22.02.2023

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi for A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC, Delhi was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 2,87,46,530.00 under section 143(1) of the act ignoring the fact that the disallowance is highly disputed and cannot be disallowed under section 143(1).

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC, Delhi was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 2,87,46,530.00, received by the assessee towards contribution to any provident fund or any fund set up for the welfare of employees and had paid all such sums before the time limit specified under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Vishwaranjan Prasad Singh vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2019-20 - 2 – 2. The assessee craves leave to add, alter amend or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before the time of hearing.”

3. The assessee is a proprietor carrying on the business in the name of World Wide Security Organization. Income Tax Return for the A.Y. 2019-20 was filed by the assessee on 02.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 2,47,37,330/-. The preliminary assessment under Section 143(1) was completed on 14.07.2020, therefore, intimation was issued at total income of Rs. 5,34,83,860/- thereby making addition of Rs. 2,87,46,530/- on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance in to the Government account under Section 36(1)(va).

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment / intimation the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC. The CIT(A) / NFAC dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 2,87,46,530/- received by the assessee towards contribution to Provident Fund or fund set up for the welfare of the employees and had paid all such sums before the time limit specified under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 order dated 12.10.2022 decided the issue against the assessee as the delayed payment of Provident Fund and ESI was after the statutory due limit and Vishwaranjan Prasad Singh vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2019-20 - 3 – therefore, the CIT(A) / NFAC and the Assessing Officer has rightly made disallowance. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) / NFAC. Hence, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

8.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 22/02/2023 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule, 1963. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 22/02/2023

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 →