ACIT-13(1) (2), Mumbai V. OOMMEN CHACKALYIL CHACKO, MUMBAI

ITA 1620/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9569 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2022
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• 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. 1620/MUM/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) ACIT-13(1)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 18, 2 nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Oommen Chackalyil Chacko, 203-204, Building No. 12, Indradarshan Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400053 [PAN: AABPC7090D] .................. Vs ................ Appellant Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department For the Respondent/Assessee : : Shri Santhil Kumaran Shri Kedar Phadke Date of conclusion of hearing Date of pronouncement of order : : 08.09.2022 28.10.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 24.04.2022, 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 allowed the appeal against the intimation/order, dated 23.11.2020 passed by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA. No. 1620/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 2 2. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal 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). The CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the decisions of the Tribunal. 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 the appeal is 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 issue is being remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) all the rights and contentions are left open. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal stand disposed off. 3. In the result, the appeal is 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. 1620/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 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