Paremaram Tikuram Choudhary Labour Contractor, Jalna V. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 681/PUN/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Paremaram Tikuram Choudhary, a labour contractor, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the disallowance made by the lower tax authorities. The disallowance of Rs.3,08,660 was made under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the late deposit of the employees' share of provident fund. The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and referenced a similar case, Cementile Industries, Pune & Ors. vs. ITO, Pune & Ors., where identical arguments were rejected.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128083 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors., Cementile Industries, Pune & Ors. vs. ITO, Pune & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 250; 139(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण “बी” ᭠यायपीठ पुणे मᱶ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.681/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Paremaram Tikuram Choudhary, Labour Contractor, House No.5, Poonam Niwas, Saklecha Nagar, Jalna – 431 203 PAN : AAUFP5966C .......अपीलाथᱮ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru ......ᮧ᭜यथᱮ /Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri M.G.Jasnani सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12.10.2022 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for AY 2019-20 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2021-22/1036528471(1) dated 22/10/2021 involving proceedings u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused 3. The assessee’s sole issue raised in this appeal challenging confirmation of both the learned lower authorities action making disallowance 2 ITA No.681/PUN/2021 A.Y. : 2019-20 Shri Paremaram Tikuram Choudhary, of Rs.3,08,660/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of the employees’ share of provident fund, as per the CPC’s processing as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to vehement rival stand and find no merit in assessee’s submissions as hon’ble apex court’s recent decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd., & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors. [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) has settled the law that such ESI/PF dues have to be deposited as per the due date in the corresponding statute and not before the due date for filing section 139(1) return. Learned counsel next submitted that such a disallowance could hardly be made u/s. 143(1)(i)-(iv) of the Act as the same does not amount to an apparent incorrect claim. We note that this tribunal’s coordinate bench in Cementile Industries, Pune & Ors. vs. ITO, Pune & Ors. vide ITA.No.693/Pun/2022 & batch, order dated 23.11.2022 has already rejected the concerned assessees’ identical arguments as follows :- “2. On a representative basis, we are taking up the factual scenario from the appeal preferred by Cemetile Industries (in ITA No.693/PUN/2022) against the order u/s.154 of the Act, which was espoused for arguments by both the sides as a lead case. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return, which was processed u/s.143(1) on 22-08-2019 making disallowance, inter alia, u/s.36(1)(va) amounting to Rs.3,40,347/- on the ground that the amount received by the assessee from employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF)/Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc. (hereinafter called `the relevant funds’) was not credited to the employees’ accounts on or before the due date as prescribed