DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE V. ALLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

MA 230/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking to recall an ITAT order that favored the assessee regarding the allowability of deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original ITAT decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's earlier ruling, which was later contradicted by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT. The Revenue argued that the Supreme Court's decision should retroactively apply, leading to the recall of the ITAT's earlier decision. However, the ITAT dismissed the application, citing that the Supreme Court's decision was not available at the time of the original ruling, and thus, there was no apparent mistake to correct under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472334 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, DCIT Vs. ANI Integrated Services Ltd., Infantry Security and Facilities Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 254(2)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.230/PUN/2023 (arising out of ITA No.400/PUN/2021) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cricle-8, Pune. V s Allied Resource Management Service (India) Private Limited, Sai Venkata Trade Centre, 2nd Floor, Pune Nashik Highway, Bhosari, Pune – 411039. PAN: AACCR9089D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee by Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR Revenue by Shri akhilesh Srivastava–Addl.CIT(Dr) Date of hearing 10/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue requesting to recall the order of the ITAT in the case of MA No.230/PUN/2023 [R] 2 Assessee in ITA No.400/PUN/2021, dated 19.09.2022 for A.Y.2018-19, wherein ITAT decided the Assessee’s appeal in favour of assessee regarding allowability of deduction under section 36(1)(va) following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., in IT Appeal Nos.1002 & 1034 of 2012 vide order dated 14.10.2014. 2. Revenue in the Miscellaneous Application have submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., Vs. CIT 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has decided the issue in favour of Revenue. Revenue further pleaded that the Law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Law of the Land. Revenue submitted that in the case of the Assessee, an order under section 143(1) of the Act, was passed on 16.02.2020 disallowing an amount of Rs.1,33,90,867/- on the ground that MA No.230/PUN/2023 [R] 3 Employee’s Contribution towards Provident Fund/ESI was not credited within due date. Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance and Assessee had filed appeal before the ITAT. ITAT allowed the Assessee’s appeal. Revenue further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., Vs. CIT 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has held that to claim deduction under section 36(1)(va), the Employees Contribution towards ESI/PF has to be deposited within the statutory time limit. 3. Ld.AR submitted that there is no apparent mistake in the order dated 19.09.2022 of the ITAT in Assessee’s case in ITA No.400/PUN/2021. Ld.AR further submitted that at that point of time, Hon’ble ITAT followed the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and there was no decision of Hon’ble MA No.230/PUN/2023 [R] 4 Supreme Court on the issue. Therefore, there is no mistake in the order of the ITAT. 3.1 Ld.AR relied on the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. ANI Integrated Services Ltd., [2024] 162 taxmann.com 889 (Mumbai Tribunal), dated 29.05.2024 and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Infantry Security and Facilities Vs. ITO Writ Petition No.17175/2024 dated 03.12.2024. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We are of the opinion that there is no apparent mistake in our order in ITA No.400/PUN/2021 dated 19.09.2022, because we have followed the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which was available at that point of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., MA No.230/PUN/2023 [R] 5 Vs. CIT 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) was rendered subsequently. Under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, only mistake apparent from the record can be corrected. In this case, at that point of time, there was no decision available of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been relied by Revenue, hence there is no apparent mistake in the order. We find support from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Infantry Security and Facilities Vs. ITO in Writ Petition No.17175/2024 dated 03.12.2024. In the case of Infantry Security and Facilities Vs. ITO, the issue involved was disallowance under section 36(1)(va) on account of delay in payment of Employees contribution towards ESI/PF. In the case of Infantry Security and Facilities Vs. ITO, ITAT had decided the issue in favour of assessee. Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application before ITAT based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra). The ITAT MA No.230/PUN/2023 [R] 6 allowed the Revenue’s Miscellaneous Application. Aggrieved by the order of the ITAT, Infantry Security and Facilities filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Para-19 held as under : “19. We may observe that recently a bench of the Tribunal in the case of ANI Integrated Services Ltd (Supra), had the occasion to consider the very issue as raised by the Revenue in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Private Limited (Supra). In such case similar applications were filed by the Revenue praying that the Tribunal set aside its orders in relation to Employees State Insurance Corporation (\"ESIC\" for short) (for the Assessment Year 2019-20) considering the changed position in law in \"Checkmate Services Private Limited\" (Supra). The Tribunal by its decision dated 29 May 2024 [ANI Integrated Services Limited (Supra)] did not accept the contentions as urged on behalf of the Revenue and rejected the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue, also considering the decision in Beghar Foundation (Supra) and the scope of its limited jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in ANI Integrated Services Ltd (Supra) and which is on the very issue as urged by the petitioner.” MA No.230/PUN/2023 [R] 7 4.1 Thus, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has categorically held that such decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court which never existed when the Tribunal passed the original order could never have been applied by the Tribunal, and hence it cannot be said that there was any mistake on the face of the record, so as to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Act. 5. Thus, respectfully following Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, Revenue’s Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 7th Feb, 2025/ SGR* MA No.230/PUN/2023 [R] 8 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "