Rohit Salwan, Delhi V. DCIT, Circle-60(1), New Delhi

ITA 2571/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Rohit Salwan against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which arose from an intimation order under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute centered on the disallowance of Rs.17,53,524, which was added to the assessee's income due to late deposit of employees' contributions to Provident Fund/ESIC. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT, which clarified that such late deposits are taxable and not deductible under section 36(i)(va) of the Act if paid after the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1).

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115871 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT, Cemetile Industries vs ITO, Savleen Kaur & Others vs ITO, Data Glove IT Solutions Private Limited vs ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43B; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2571/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rohit Salwan, A-97/1, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi – 110 096. PAN: ATXPS1785L Vs. DCIT, Circle-60(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.08.2022 arising from intimation order dated 02.03.2020 passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.17,53,524/- on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards Provident Fund/ESIC after due date as per the relevant statute despite the payment of such deposit before the due date of furnishing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. ITA No.2571/Del/2022 2 3. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. The matter was accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 4. Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue on its part, contended that Central Processing Centre (“CPC”) has made addition of Rs.17,53,524/- to the returned income of the assessee on account of late deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC deferred while processing the return of income. In this regard, the action of the Revenue in making disallowance towards late deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC was supported by the judgement rendered in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue thus submitted that even for Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2021-22, belated deposit of employees contribution held in Trust by the employee Assessee are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w. Section 43B of the Act and the deduction u/s 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be permissible thereon in case of belated payments. Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue further contended that the delayed deposit of employees contribution indicated in the Audit Report is sufficient for adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act, as held by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cemetile Industries vs ITO TS-933- ITAT-2022 (Pune). 5. The issue towards taxability of belated employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC is no longer res integra in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (supra). The co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Cemetile Industries vs ITO (supra) had expressed a view that such adjustment/disallowance is also permissible in the proceedings carried ITA No.2571/Del/2022 3 out u/s 143(1) of the Act. Very recently, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Savleen Kaur & Others vs ITO in ITA No.2249/Del/2022 & Others for Assessment Year 2018-19 & Others vide order dated 09.01.2023 and in Data Glove IT Solutions Private Limited vs. ITO in ITA No.994/Del/2021 for Assessment Year 2018-19 vide order dated 15.02.2023 has also taken a similar view and upheld the action of the Revenue. In parity with the view taken by Co-ordinate Benches, we do not see any merit in the appeal of the assessee. We thus, do not see any warrant to any reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex-parte. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2023. Sd/- (C.M. GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28 th February, 2023. dk Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi