ITO3(1) CPC, Bengaluru V. Vivek Singhal, Indore

MA 27/Ind/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0962 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 3 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, इंदौर Ûयायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 27/Ind/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.22/Ind/2022) Assessment Year: 2018-19 I,TO CPC, Bangalore बनाम/ Vs. Shri Vivek Singhal, 3-AA, Scheme No.54, Vijay Nagar, Indore. (Applicant/Revenue) (Respondent/Assessee) PAN: ADUPS9604H Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 06.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 06.10.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: This Misc. Application [“M/A”] u/s 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 is preferred by Revenue seeking re-call of Order dated 29.07.2022 of ITAT, Indore Bench in ITA No.22/Ind/2022 for assessment-year 2018-19. ITO,CPC,Bangalore vs. Shri .Vivek Singhal, Indore. MANo.27/Ind/2023 Assessment year 2018-19 Page 2 of 3 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice but the Ld. DR for revenue was ready to argue. On perusal of the issue involved, it was thought fit to decide the present M/A on the basis of available record and after hearing Ld. DR. Hence the hearing of case is proceeded. 3. Ld. DR submitted that the revenue is seeking re-call of the impugned order because the issue involved therein was the deduction of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI paid after due date under the respective laws but before due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1). The ITAT has held as allowable deduction by following certain decisions of Hon’ble Courts favouring the assessee. Now, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled this controversy in the case of Checkmat Services Private Limited vs. CIT 448 ITR 518 against assessee and in favour of revenue by holding that the payment of employees’ contribution to PF / ESI after due dates under their respective laws is not allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(va) even if the payment is made on or before due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that provisions of Section 43B does not cover the deduction of employees’ contribution to PF/ ESI. Therefore, in view of judgement in Checkmat Services Private Limited vs. CIT (supra), an apparent mistake has crept in the impugned order taking a view which is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, this is a fit situation to re-call the impugned Order passed by ITAT, Indore. We find merit in the submission of Ld. DR. Therefore, we agree to accept the present M/A and restore the original appeal. Ordered accordingly. ITO,CPC,Bangalore vs. Shri .Vivek Singhal, Indore. MANo.27/Ind/2023 Assessment year 2018-19 Page 3 of 3 4. The registry is directed to list original appeal for a fresh hearing on 06.11.2023 under intimation to assessee. Ld. DR has noted the date of hearing, hence no separate intimation is required. 5. Resultantly, this M/A is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court immediately on conclusion of hearing and subsequently reduced in writing Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore Ǒदनांक /Dated : 06.10.2023 CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore