O P Marine Services Private Limited, Gandhidham-Kutch V. The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhidham-Kutch, Gandhidham-Kutch

ITA 279/RJT/2022

AI Insights

O P Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer regarding delayed payments of Provident Fund/ESIC contributions for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer had initially disallowed a total of Rs. 21,66,999, which included both Employer's and Employee's contributions, due to non-compliance with the statutory payment deadlines under the Provident Fund Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which upheld similar disallowances for delayed statutory contributions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129344 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154; 139

Judgement Text

ITA No.279/RJT/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.279/RJT/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 O P Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Complex, 1 st Floor Ward – 2, Gandhidham. Office No.3, Ward 12C, Plot No.588, Nr. Police Station Char Rasta, Gandhidham (Kutch) – 370 201. [PAN – AABCO 3361 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Astha Maniyar, AR Revenue by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 24.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 10.02.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in facts and on law in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing a sum of Rs.10,57,486/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payments by Employer’s Contribution of PF/ESIC. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi has erred in facts and on law in confirming the action of the AO of disallowing a sum of Rs.11,07,179/- u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payments by Employee’s Contributions of PF/ESIC” 3. The assessee company furnished its return of income under Section 139 of the Act, 1961 on 29.09.2018. The Assessing Officer observed that the company in certain cases had not paid Employee’s contribution towards PF within the time limit as ITA No.279/RJT/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 2 of 3 prescribed under Provident Fund Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made adjustment/disallowance of Rs.21,66,999/- as per the intimation passed under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 16.10.2019. The tax audit report as per the contentions of the assessee wrongly mentioned the sum of Rs.21,66,999/- whereas in reality the said sum represents Employer’s contribution as well and was the aggregate contribution to PF. Employee’s share was only Rs.11,53,536/-. Therefore, the assessee filed rectification under Section 154 of the Act which was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2020 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2020 passed under Section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there is a component of Employer’s contribution of PF/ESIC which should have been allowed. 6. As regards to ground no.2, the same is held against the assessee. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A) as well as order passed under Section 154 of the Act. 8. We have head both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards to ground no.1 relating to the Employer’s contribution, the said contribution was made after due date of the Statutory Limit. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cements has been considered in the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (CA No.2833 of 2016) order dated 12.10.2022. Therefore, ground no.1 is dismissed. 9. As regards to ground no.2, the same is related to the Employee’s contribution which is a covered issue held against the assessee in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The said issue is held against the assessee. Hence, ground no.2 is dismissed. ITA No.279/RJT/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 3 of 3 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 10 th February, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 10 th February, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rajkot Bench, Rajkot