DY. CIT 13(2) (2) , MUMBAI V. M/S. SAHAKAR GLOBAL LTD, MUMBAI

MA 89/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall a Tribunal order dated 28.06.2022. The original order had dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the non-allowability of deductions for delayed payment of PF and ESIC contributions towards employees, based on precedents favoring the assessee. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which contradicted these precedents, the Revenue filed the MA. The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the delay in filing beyond the statutory limit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25674 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., Ram Baburao Salve vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT MAHAJAN
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM MA No. 89/Mum/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 46/Mum/2022) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. CIT 13(2)(2) Room No. 571, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd. B-110, Kanakia Space, Western Edge 11, Datta Pada Road, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066 PAN/GIR No. AAECS 3575 R (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Ajay R. Singh/Akshay Pawar Respondent by : Shri Prashant Mahajan Date of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.10.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Miscellaneous Application (‘MA’ for short) has been filed by the Revenue u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act' for short), for the Assessment Year 2018-19 for recall of the Tribunal order in ITA No.46/Mum/2022 dated 28.06.2022. 2. The Revenue has filed the MA pursuant to the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022, where the delayed payment of PF and ESIC towards employees contribution is held to be not an allowable deduction as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and various other decisions, where the issue of delayed payment of PF and ESIC towards employees contribution were held to be allowable deduction which 2 MA No. 89/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19) Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd. were decided in favour of the assessee. Subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Revenue had filed the present MA for recalling the order of the Tribunal dated 28.06.2022. It is observed that the Revenue has filed the present MA with a delay of 28 days and had prayed that the delay be condoned. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Upon perusal of the application, it is evident that the present application has been preferred with a delay of 28 days as per the provision of section 254(2) of the Act which mandates that the application has to be filed within 6 months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and for amending any order, which is brought to the notice of the Tribunal either by the assessee or by the A.O. The Tribunal is not vested with the power to condone the delay in filing the MA beyond 6 months. The decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ram Baburao Salve 162 taxmann.com 354 has reiterated the proposition that section 254 of the Act does not confer the power to the Tribunal for condoning the delay in filing the application beyond 6 months. We, therefore, are inclined to dismiss the MA filed by the Revenue on this observation. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.10.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 24.10.2024 Roshani, Sr. PS 3 MA No. 89/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19) Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "