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

ITA 2571/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), which had allowed the Assessee's appeal against an intimation/order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue in the appeal was the disallowance of INR 1,84,73,025 made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act concerning Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on a previous Tribunal decision, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113454 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. [ITA No. 6426/Mum/2017, dated 27.07.2021], Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1: 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/ Civil Appeal No. 833 of 2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• 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. 2571/MUM/2022 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) ACIT-13(1)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 18, 2 nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Oommen Chackalayil 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 : : None Shri Dilip K. Shah Date of conclusion of hearing Date of pronouncement of order : : 05.01.2023 23.01.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, dated 31.08.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] appeal against the intimation/order, dated 16.12.2021 passed by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was allowed by the CIT(A). ITA. No. 2571/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 2 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the Appellant. We note that the solitary issue raised in the present appeal pertains to disallowance of INR 1,84,73,025/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) vide intimation/order dated 16.12.2021 issued/passed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), the Assessee had raised many grounds including the ground relating to violation of principles of natural justice. The CIT(A), vide order dated 31.08.2022 deleted the addition on merits by following the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. [ITA No. 6426/Mum/2017, dated 27.07.2021]. 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. Thus, the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal on which reliance was placed by the CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the Assessee stands overruled. 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 taking into consideration all the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before the CIT(A) and after giving the Appellant/Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the issue is being remanded back to the file ITA. No. 2571/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 3 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 23.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 23.01.2023 Alindra, PS ITA. No. 2571/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 4 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