Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113964 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
7 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-04-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
25-04-2023
Assessment Year
2020-2021
Appeal Filed On
13-09-2022
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ITA No.2239/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18) 2. ITA No.2240/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18) 3. ITA No.2241/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19) Jindal Saw Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 13 (2), 28, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. Moti Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi – 110 015. (PAN : AABCS7280C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sourbh Sharma, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Sr. DR 4. ITA No.2285/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20) ORM Engineering P. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Circle 2 (1), Plot No.877, IMT, HSHDC Indl. Area, Faridabad. Sector 69, Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (PAN : AAACO6455C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Sr. DR ITA No.2239/Del./2022 and 9ors. 2 5. ITA No.1010/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20) Sempitern India, vs. ACIT, Ward 2 (3), Plot No.371, Sector 24, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (PAN : AAEFS4147J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Sr. DR 6. ITA No.2247/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2020-21) Eros City Developers Private Ltd., vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1, S-2, American Plaza, Delhi. International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. (PAN : AAACB0929N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Harish Dhamija, CA REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Sr. DR 7. ITA No.2195/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20) Maxop Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 16 (1), W-35, Lower Ground Floor, New Delhi. Greater Kailash Part – 1, New Delhi – 110 048. (PAN : AADCM4657M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Sr. DR ITA No.2239/Del./2022 and 9ors. 3 8. ITA No.2220/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19) Vinoy Krishna, vs. ACIT, Circle 44 (1), Room No.102, RZF – 1/382, Delhi. Mahavir Enclave (Part 1), Behind Chandra Hospital, Dadri Road, Palam, Delhi – 110 045. (PAN : AFIPK6936L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri P.P. Singh, CA REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Sr. DR 9. ITA No.2219/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20) Sainath Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. ADIT, CPC, 341 – E, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Bengaluru. Delhi – 110 032. (PAN : AASCS1500Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri P.P. Singh, CA REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Sr. DR 10. ITA No.2206/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20) Jagbir Singh Tewatia, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), C – 11, 1 st Floor, Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi. Uttam Nagar, Delhi – 110 059. (PAN : AAJPS4033N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri B.M. Singh, Sr. DR ITA No.2239/Del./2022 and 9ors. 4 Date of Hearing : 26.04.2023 Date of Order : 27.04.2023 ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals filed by different assessees are directed against the orders of respective ld. CIT (Appeals)-8 for the concerned assessment years. Since the issue is common, these appeals are disposed off by this common order. 2. We note that the short issue in this case is whether authorities below are correct in making the addition under section 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on account of PF & ESI contribution by the employees paid beyond the time specified in the respective statute but before the due date of filing of return u/s 139 (1) of the Act. 3. We find that the issue on merits is covered against the assessees by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 wherein it has been held that if employee contribution of provident fund and ESI paid beyond due date as specified under the relevant Act then the same has to be added back in the income of the assessee. Respectfully following the precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 4. In ITA No.1010/Del/2022, assessee has also raised an additional ground which reads as under :- “The Ld. AO erred in law in passing the order u/s 143 (1) in a template text format without any cogent and specific reason on debatable and controversial issue which was clearly beyond the scope of sec.143 (1).” ITA No.2239/Del./2022 and 9ors. 5 5. Upon careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the additional ground is also liable to be dismissed on the touchstone of aforesaid order of Hon’ble Supreme Court. After the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this issue no more remains debatable. Hence, the additional ground is also dismissed. 6. In the result, all the aforesaid appeals filed by assessees stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27 th day of April, 2023. Sd/- sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 27 th day of April, 2023/TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A). 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
AI Insights
The appeals in question were filed by various assessees against the orders of the CIT (Appeals)-8 for different assessment years. The core issue across these appeals was the addition made under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the employee contributions to provident fund and ESI which were paid beyond the statutory due dates but before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1). The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that such contributions should indeed be added back to the income of the assessee. Additionally, in ITA No.1010/Del/2022, an additional ground was raised regarding the use of a template text format for the order under section 143(1), which was also dismissed based on the Supreme Court's ruling.
