M/S. OLIVE BAR & KITCHEN PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST DIR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 1556/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9570 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43B; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1557/MUM/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) & ITA No. 1556/MUM/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Olive Bar & Kitchen Private Limited, 14 Union Park, Palli Hill Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Palli Hill Road, Khar West, Mumbai - 400052 [PAN: AAACO5346G] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banglore .................. Vs ................ Appellant Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Mahesh O. Rajora Shri Sandeep Raj Date of conclusion of hearing Date of pronouncement of order : : 05.09.2022 28.10.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two appeals for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2019-2020. In each appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, dated 27.04.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the intimation/order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA. No. 1556 & 1557/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2019-20 2 2. The solitary issue raised in both the appeals pertains to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). In the appeal filed by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2018-19 (ITA No. 240/Mum/2022) identical issue was decided in the favour of the Appellant. However, recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1: 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2016, held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employees’ contribution to PF/ESI, and the due date specified under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue in both the appeals are remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the Appellant/Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the issues are being remanded back all the rights and contentions are left open. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeals stand disposed off. 3. In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28.10.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 28.10.2022 Alindra, PS ITA. No. 1556 & 1557/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2019-20 3 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai