Ranbir Singh Sorout, Faridabad V. ITO,Ward-2(2), Faridabad

ITA 53/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Ranbir Singh Sorout, the proprietor of M/s Trident Industrial Solutions, against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) for three consecutive assessment years. The primary contention was regarding the additions made to the income of the assessee due to late deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI. The Assessing Officer had added these amounts back to the income under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they were not deposited within the due dates specified under the PF/ESI Acts, although they were deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return. The CIT (Appeals) upheld these additions, leading to the current appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113922 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 37; 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.52/Del./2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18) ITA No.53/Del./2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19) ITA No.54/Del./2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20) Ranbir Singh Sorout, vs. ITO, Ward 2 (2), B – 49, Sector 11A, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (PAN : AZHPS3384D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date of Order : 21.06.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT (Appeals) for the respective assessment years. 2. Since the facts are identical and the appeals were heard together, these are being consolidated and disposed off by this common order. ITA Nos.52, 53 & 54/Del./2023 2 3. For the sake of reference, we are referring grounds of appeal for AY 2017-18 which read as under :- “1. That on the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. AO) is bad in law and the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at income of Rs 64,46,470/- as against the returned income of Rs 42,72,440/- 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT (A)'), grossly erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs 21,42,901/- of Employee Contribution of PF & ESI made under section 43(B) of the income tax act, 1961 which is uncalled for, based on surmises and conjectures and bad in law. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT (A)'), grossly erred in not allowing the expenditure, related to business expediency, amounting to Rs 21,42,901/- of Employee Contribution of PF & ESI under section 37(1) of the income tax act, 1961 which is uncalled for, based on surmises and conjectures and bad in law.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor, M/s Trident Industrial Solutions. The assessee has filed its return of income on 11.10.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.42,72,240/- for the AY 2017-18. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) while processing the return for the AY 2017-18, assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.64,46,470/- by making an addition of Rs.21,42,901/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that the assessee deposited employees contribution of PF / ESI beyond the due date ITA Nos.52, 53 & 54/Del./2023 3 specified under PF/ESI Act, although the same were deposited before the due date of filing of return of income. A further addition of Rs.9735/- was made u/s 37 of the Act on account of ESI penalty. An addition of Rs.21,400/- was also made by the AO on account of labour welfare u/s 43B of the Act. 5. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition for ESI penalty but confirmed the addition of Rs.21,42,901/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that assessee deposited employees provident fund beyond the due date specified under PF/ESI Act. 6. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we are going to adjudicate the appeal after hearing the ld. DR for the Revenue and perusing the material on record. 7. Upon careful consideration, we find that this issue is fully settled in favour of the Revenue 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 ITA Nos.52, 53 & 54/Del./2023 4 following the precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 8. Our above order applies mutatis mutandis in case of ITA Nos.53 & 54/Del/2023 for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20. 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 21 st day of June, 2023. Sd/- sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 21 st day of June, 2023 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.