SATPAL KASWAN,HARYANA vs. WARD-4(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1847/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 June 2023AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the assessee's claim regarding the timely deposit of PF and ESI contributions. The Assessing Officer is to decide after considering evidence and the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deductions for delayed payment of employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI). The Assessing Officer disallowed these deductions as the payments were not made within the prescribed due dates.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of deduction for delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is justified, and the need for factual verification of the deposit dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHE ‘H’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 28.06.2023Pronounced: 28.06.2023

Date of hearing : 28.06.2023 Date of pronouncement: 28.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.:

Aforesaid appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders, both, dated 02.06.2021 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019- 20.

2.

We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. The solitary dispute in these appeals relates to disallowance of deduction claimed in respect of delayed payment of employees’ contribution under the Provident Fund (PF) Act and Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act. While processing the returns of income filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment years, the Central Processing Centre (CPC), having found that employees’ contribution to PF and ESI were not paid within the due dates prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts, disallowed the deductions claimed by the assessee in respect thereof. The disallowance so made was confirmed by the first appellate authority.

3.

Before us, it is the say of the assessee that due to misstatement/misreporting of facts, the disallowance has been made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, on a reading of the order passed by the first appellate authority, it is observed that the assessee had taken a plea that due to scarcity of fund, employees’ contribution to PF and ESI could not be deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. Be that as it may, considering the specific contention of the assessee before us that the disallowance has been made due to misstatement/misreporting of facts relating to payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, we are inclined to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for factually verifying assessee’s claim. It is open to the assessee to furnish all necessary documentary evidences to establish its claim that employees’ contribution to PF and ESI were deposited within the due date prescribed under the PF and ESI Acts. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue after considering the evidences filed by the assessee and applying the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 448 ITR 518 (SC). Before deciding the issue, the assessee must be provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28/06/2023.

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 →