CERTITUDE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 99/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 June 2023AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the taxability of belated employees' contribution to PF/ESIC is settled by the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services case. Such disallowances are permissible even under Section 143(1).

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC made belatedly. The disallowance was made by the CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of belated employees' contribution to PF/ESIC is permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act and whether such belated payments are deductible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 143(1),Section 2(24)(x)

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 BENCH “B” DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Ranjan, CA
For Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 13/12/2022 arising from intimation dated 09/08/2019 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) concerning Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

As per grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC u/s 36(i)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm covered under ESIC / Provident Fund Act. The deposit towards employees contribution was all made but however slightly late. It was contended that the addition of Rs. 11,51,751/- on account of belated deposit of employees contribution

1.

ITA No.- 99/Del/2023 2 to PF / ESIC is not justifiable under Section 143(1) of the Act, particularly where the auditor in the Tax Audit Report has never indicated any disallowance to be carried out under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as required under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act.

4.

The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on its part, contended that Central Processing Centre (“CPC”) has made additions of Rs. 11,51,751/- to the returned income of the assessee on account of late deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC deferred while processing the return of income. In this regard, the action of the Revenue in making disallowance towards late deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC was supported by the judgement rendered in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue thus submitted that even for Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2018-19, belated deposit of employees contribution held in Trust by the employee Assessee are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w. Section 43B of the Act and the deduction u/s 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be permissible thereon in case of belated payments. Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue further contended that the delayed deposit of employees contribution indicated in the Audit Report is sufficient for adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act, as held by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cemetile Industries vs ITO TS-933-ITAT- 2022 (Pune).

5.

The issue towards taxability of belated employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC is no longer res integra in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (supra). The co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Cemetile Industries vs ITO (supra) had expressed a view that such adjustment/disallowance is also permissible in the proceedings carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act. Very recently, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Savleen Kaur & Others vs ITO in & Others for Assessment

ITA No.- 99/Del/2023 3 Year 2018-19 & Others vide order dated 09.01.2023 and in BT Data and Surveying Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in for Asy 2018-19 vide order dated 07.02.2023 has also taken a similar view and upheld the action of the Revenue. In parity with the view taken by Co-ordinate Benches, we do not see any merit in the appeal of the assessee. We thus, do not see any warrant to any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2023.

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 →