REMOTE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD,ALTO BETIM vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PANAJI

2 & 35/PAN/2022 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the assessee in 2018-19 are stated herein. ITA No.34/PAN/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 : 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of proceedings for the assessment year under consideration, the CPC, Bengalore made disallowance of Rs.40,29,887/- in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 16.10.2019 on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the employees’ share of PF and ESIC etc within due date prescribed under respective Statutes, but paid before due date for filing of Return of Income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue relates to the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.40,29,887/- made by the CPC, Bengalore u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of the Employees’ share of PF and 3 ITA Nos.34 & 35/PAN/2022 ESIC etc. However, the issue of making disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of Employees share of PF and ESI deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts, but before the time limit for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) can be allowed only if the employees’ share in the relevant funds is deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated under respective Acts and further that the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act is alien for this purpose.

Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), we hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is correct under law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in A.Y. 2018-19 stands dismissed. ITA No.35/PAN/2022, A.Y. 2019-20 : 9. Since the facts and issues involved in both the appeals of the assessee are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA