Remote Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Alto Betim V. Assessing Officer, Ward - 2(4), Panaji

ITA 35/PAN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Remote Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) confirming a disallowance made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. The disallowance pertained to the late deposit of employees' shares of PF and ESIC for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Tribunal, referencing a Supreme Court decision, upheld the disallowance, emphasizing that the due date for deposit under the respective statutes is critical and must be adhered to, independent of the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136978 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHWINI D. HOSMANI
• Section: 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.34 & 35/PAN/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2018-19 to 2019-20 Remote Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., H.No.1661, Near Tarun Bharat, Alto Betim, Penha de Franca-Goa- 403521. PAN : AADCR0144G Vs. Assessing Officer, WARD-2(4), Panaji. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 16.03.2022 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both the above captioned appeals of the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date of hearing : 04.09.2023 Date of pronouncement : 06.09.2023 ITA Nos.34 & 35/PAN/2022 2 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.34/PAN/2022 for the assessment year 2018-19 are stated herein. ITA No.34/PAN/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 : 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of proceedings for the assessment year under consideration, the CPC, Bengalore made disallowance of Rs.40,29,887/- in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) dated 16.10.2019 on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the employees’ share of PF and ESIC etc within due date prescribed under respective Statutes, but paid before due date for filing of Return of Income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC confirmed the said disallowance. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue relates to the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.40,29,887/- made by the CPC, Bengalore u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of the Employees’ share of PF and ITA Nos.34 & 35/PAN/2022 3 ESIC etc. However, the issue of making disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of Employees share of PF and ESI deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts, but before the time limit for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) can be allowed only if the employees’ share in the relevant funds is deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated under respective Acts and further that the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act is alien for this purpose. 7. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), we hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is correct under law. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.34/PAN/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 stands dismissed. ITA No.35/PAN/2022, A.Y. 2019-20 : 9. Since the facts and issues involved in both the appeals of the assessee are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA ITA Nos.34 & 35/PAN/2022 4 No.34/PAN/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.35/PAN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 respectively. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.35/PAN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 stands dismissed. 10. To sum up, both the above captioned appeals of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 06 th day of September, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 06 th September, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, Panaji. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.