Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113477 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
15-08-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
E
Next Hearing Date
18-05-2023
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Appeal Filed On
15-02-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 178/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 146/Mum/2022) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Income Tax Officer, 12(2)(1), Mumbai, Room No. 147B, 1 st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ................ Appellant M/s Edocs Solutions Ltd., Transmission House, 1 st Floor, Plot No. 6/19, Compound No. 82, Marol Co-op Indl. Estate, Near Marol Bhavan, M.V. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400059 [PAN : AAECE3948A] Vs ................ Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department For the Respondent/Assessee : : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal None Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 19.05.2023 16.08.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue for rectification of order, dated 28/07/2022, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 146/Mum/2022, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2. Vide order, dated 28/07/2022, passed in ITA No. 146/Mum/2022, Ground No. 1 raised in appeal by the Assessee were allowed. The MA No. 178/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 2 addition of INR 35,62,677/- made by the Assessing Officer, vide order/intimation, dated 23/10/2019, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act on account deposits of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation after lapse of time prescribed in the applicable statute was deleted since the aforesaid deposit, though delayed, were made before the due date of filing return specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd. v. CIT- 1:[2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC)[12-10-2022], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where an assessee failed to deposit Employees' Contribution towards Provident Fund and Employees’ State Insurance within due date prescribed in respective statutes, deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act was not allowable. The non-obstante clause contained in Section 43B of the Act would not apply in the case of employees’ contribution deducted from the salary of employees and held in trust by assessee-employer. Therefore, such assessee-employer would not be absolve from the liability to deposit employees’ contribution on or before the due date specified in the respective statutes as a pre-condition for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. A subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court can validly form the basis for rectification under Section 254 of the Act in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.: 2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) and the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Kailashnath Malhotra Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range 56, Mumbai [2009] 34 SOT 541 (Mum.) (TM), and Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hughes Services (FE) Pte. Ltd.: [2009] [2005] 93 ITD 77 (Delhi)(TM). MA No. 178/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 3 4. The view taken by the Tribunal vide order dated, 28/07/2022, being contrary to view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd. (supra) constitutes a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, we allow the rectification application preferred by the Revenue. Accordingly, order dated 28/07/2022 is recalled for adjudication of Ground No. 1 raised in the appeal. The registry is directed to list the appeal for hearing before the regular bench in due course after notice to both the parties. 5. In result, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Order pronounced on 16.08.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 16.08.2023 Alindra, PS MA No. 178/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai
AI Insights
The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Mumbai, as the appellant, and M/s Edocs Solutions Ltd., as the respondent, concerning the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of a previous Tribunal order that had allowed the assessee's appeal against the addition of INR 35,62,677, which was made on account of delayed deposits of Employees' Contributions to Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance. The Tribunal's initial decision was based on the deposits being made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, a subsequent Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Private Ltd. v. CIT-1 clarified that such contributions must be deposited within the due dates specified by the respective statutes to be eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This led to the rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order.
