HITENDER GILL,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD -2(2), FARIDABAD
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC for late deposit, citing Supreme Court and coordinate bench judgments. Such belated payments are considered taxable income, and deductions are not permissible.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte as neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. The appeals challenged the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC due to late deposit.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC for late deposit is permissible under Section 43B and Section 36(i)(va) of the Income Tax Act, even for assessment years prior to 2021-22 and during processing under Section 143(1).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 36(i)(va),Section 43B,Section 2(24)(x),Section 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
ORDER PER BENCH These appeals filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.02.2023 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019- 20.
When the appeal was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed despite issuance of notice. However, or perusal of the appeal records and impugned order, we find that the appeal can be disposed of ex-parte qua assessee after hearing the arguments of ld. Senior DR. Therefore we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua assessee.
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. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. It was seen that opportunities have been given in the past for compliance. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are constraint to proceed ex- parte in the absence of the assessee.
4. Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue on its part, contended that Central Processing Centre (“CPC”) has made additions of Rs. 27,70,629/- 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 judgment 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 2021-22, 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 payment of 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 Year 2018-19 & Others vide order dated 09.01.2023 and in BT Data and Surveying Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.1658/Del/2021 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 reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of assessee are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07th June, 2023. NV/- Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent
More judgments on Section 36(i)(va)
- Umang Boards Limited, Jaipur vs DCIT, Circle-1 Jaipur, JaipurITA 969/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019
- Welfare Buildings & Estates Pvt. Ltd… vs DCIT, CPC, BengaluruITA 252/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
- The Mahil Gailan Cooperative Agriculture… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1…ITA 106/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
- Nashik District Supervision Co Op Society… vs ITO Ward 1(1) Nashik, NashikITA 2250/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Ms Gondwana Engineers Limited, NagpurITA 387/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026