MANJU MEHTA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), FARIDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of deposit dates and whether they fall within the grace period. The AO is to decide the issue afresh in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of ESI and EPF payments amounting to Rs. 371,020. The disallowance was made by the CPC, Bengaluru, on the grounds that the deposits were made after the due date.
What were the issues?
Whether ESI and EPF payments made after the due date but within the grace period are allowable as a deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
Appellant by Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 05/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 05/07/2023 ORDER
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 01.12.2022 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2020-21.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made by the CPC, Bengaluru towards ESI and EPF payment amounting to Rs.371020/- on the ground that the deposits have been made after the due date. 3. This quarrel is no more resintegra as it has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd in Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 order dated 13.10.2022. 4. However, the Counsel pleaded that though the deposits have been made after the due date but much before the due date + grace period given under the respective Act. This contention of the Counsel needs verification. 5. We restore the issue to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to verify the dates of deposits and whether the same are within grace period provided in the respective Act and decide the issue afresh in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) and after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Decision announced in the open court on 05.07.2023.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026