DRISHTI APPARELS,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -29(1), DELHI
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 held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI beyond the statutory due date, even if made before the return filing date, is not eligible for deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction for employees' contribution to PF and ESI, which was deposited after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date. The CPC disallowed this deduction, and the assessee's rectification and appeal to the first appellate authority were unsuccessful.
What were the issues?
Whether deduction for employees' contribution to PF and ESI is allowable if deposited after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the return of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 05.09.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19.
When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. Even, the assessee has not filed any application seeking adjournment. Since, the notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee and the assessee has preferred not to represent its case, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing learned Departmental Representative and based on materials available on record.
The grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal relate to disallowance of deduction claimed towards employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI).
Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute are, the assessee is a resident partnership firm. While proposing the return of income filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment year, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) noticed that though employees’ contribution to PF and ESI have not been deposited within the due date prescribed under the relevant statutes governing such payments, in terms with section 36(i)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, however, the assessee has still claimed deduction. Since, the deduction claimed by the assessee was inadmissible, while issuing intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC disallowed the deduction claimed and accordingly adjusted the income of the assessee. After receiving the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the 2 | P a g e assessee moved application under section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of mistake in the intimation issued, insofar as, it relates to disallowance of deduction claimed towards payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI. However, the rectification application was rejected by the CPC. Challenging such orders, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.
However, the disallowance was confirmed.
We have considered the submission of learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record.
No doubt, the disputed disallowance of Rs.21,06,720/- represents delayed payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI for the assessment year 2018-19. Admittedly, the assessee has not deposited the employees contribution to PF and ESI within the due date prescribed under the statutes governing such payments. It is the say of the assessee that such payments were made within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Hence, deduction claimed is allowable.
In our view, the aforesaid claim of the assessee is not acceptable, as, now the issue stands decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT- I (CIVIL APPEAL No. 2833 of 2016 and Ors., dated 12th October, 2022)
5. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised. Accordingly, grounds raised are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 6.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2023
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026