Certitude, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi

ITA 99/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves The Certitude, New Delhi, a partnership firm, appealing against an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which arose from an intimation under Section 143(1) concerning the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issue was the disallowance of employees' contributions to Provident Fund/ESIC, which were deposited slightly late. The assessee argued that the additions made were unjustifiable as the Tax Audit Report did not indicate any disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) as required under Section 143(1)(a)(iv). The Revenue supported the disallowance citing the judgment in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT and other similar cases. The Tribunal, referencing multiple precedents, dismissed the appeal, affirming the disallowance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121545 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT, Cemetile Industries vs ITO, Savleen Kaur & Others vs ITO, BT Data and Surveying Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43B; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.99/DEL/2023 Assessment Year 2018-19 The Certitude, New Delhi. Vs. ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAIFC3718P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rajeev Ranjan, CA Respondent by: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 19 06 2023 Date of pronouncement: 19 06 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 13/12/2022 arising from intimation dated 09/08/2019 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) concerning Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. As per grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC u/s 36(i)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm covered under ESIC / Provident Fund Act. The deposit towards employees contribution was all made but however slightly late. It was contended that the addition of Rs. 11,51,751/- on account of belated deposit of employees contribution ITA No.- 99/Del/2023 2 to PF / ESIC is not justifiable under Section 143(1) of the Act, particularly where the auditor in the Tax Audit Report has never indicated any disallowance to be carried out under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as required under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue on its part, contended that Central Processing Centre (“CPC”) has made additions of Rs. 11,51,751/- to the returned income of the assessee on account of late deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC deferred while processing the return of income. In this regard, the action of the Revenue in making disallowance towards late deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC was supported by the judgement rendered in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue thus submitted that even for Assessment Years prior to Assessment Year 2018-19, belated deposit of employees contribution held in Trust by the employee Assessee are to be reckoned as taxable income of the assessee u/s. 2(24)(x) r.w. Section 43B of the Act and the deduction u/s 36(i)(va) of the Act would not be permissible thereon in case of belated payments. Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue further contended that the delayed deposit of employees contribution indicated in the Audit Report is sufficient for adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act, as held by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cemetile Industries vs ITO TS-933-ITAT- 2022 (Pune). 5. The issue towards taxability of belated employees contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC is no longer res integra in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (supra). The co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Cemetile Industries vs ITO (supra) had expressed a view that such adjustment/disallowance is also permissible in the proceedings carried out u/s 143(1) of the Act. Very recently, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Savleen Kaur & Others vs ITO in ITA No.2249/Del/2022 & Others for Assessment ITA No.- 99/Del/2023 3 Year 2018-19 & Others vide order dated 09.01.2023 and in BT Data and Surveying Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.1658/Del/2021 for Asy 2018-19 vide order dated 07.02.2023 has also taken a similar view and upheld the action of the Revenue. In parity with the view taken by Co-ordinate Benches, we do not see any merit in the appeal of the assessee. We thus, do not see any warrant to any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [CHANDRA MOHAN GARG] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19/06/2023 POOJA Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar ITA No.- 99/Del/2023 4 Date 1. Draft dictated on 20.06.2023 2. Draft placed before author 20.06.2023 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File comes back to PS/Sr. PS 8. Uploaded on 9. File sent to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the AR 11. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 12. Date of dispatch of Order.