TARA ENGINEERS& CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1194/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Tara Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Delhi, which confirmed the addition/adjustment of Rs. 11,54,887 made by CPC, Bangalore. This adjustment was due to the delayed deposit of employees' contributions to PF and ESIC, which was upheld following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The main contention was whether the amendments to sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act were retrospective and applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. The Tribunal found that the specific subsection under which the adjustment was made was not clearly identified in the order, leading to the setting aside of the order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713250 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), Raj Kumar Bothra vs. DCIT TAXC No. 56 of 2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: VENUGOPAL NAIR
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1194/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tara Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 3, Sumitra Bhavan, Opp BPCL Main Gate Chembur, Mumbai-400074. Vs. ITO-14(3)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAECT 3095 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Venugopal Nair Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 2, Delhi [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 1. Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in holding amendment to 43B and 36(1)(va) are retrospective confirming addition / adjustment of Rs. 11,54,887/ made by CPC, Bangalore on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF & ESIC respectively. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in holding d adjustment while processing of ROl for issue of intimation u/s 143(1) even for assessment years prior to A Y 2021 amendment was brought only by Finance Act 2021 2021. 2. The ground No. 2 of the appeal was not pressed on behalf of the assessee and therefore, same is dismissed as infructuous. 2.1 As far as ground No. 1 of the appeal is concerned, the assessee aggrieved with the disallowance of employees contribution to the provident fund (PF) and employee estate insurance corporate (ESIC) which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee however relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT TAXC No. 56 of 2025. 3. We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. We have seen the impugned order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961( In short the Act). In said order, we are not able to find under which particular sub section adjustment has been made, particularly , for payment of PF period provided u/s 43B of the Act or beyond the period provided Tara Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 1194/MUM/2025 Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in holding amendment to 43B and 36(1)(va) are retrospective confirming addition / adjustment of Rs. 11,54,887/- made by CPC, Bangalore on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF & ESIC respectively. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in holding debatable issues can be subjected to addition/ adjustment while processing of ROl for issue of intimation u/s 143(1) even for assessment years prior to A Y 2021-22 overlooking amendment was brought only by Finance Act 2021 . 2 of the appeal was not pressed on behalf of the assessee and therefore, same is dismissed as infructuous. As far as ground No. 1 of the appeal is concerned, the assessee with the disallowance of employees contribution to the and employee estate insurance corporate (ESIC) which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. d. 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee however relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT TAXC No. 56 3. We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. We have seen the impugned order u/s 143(1)(a) tax Act, 1961( In short the Act). In said order, we are not able to find under which particular sub section adjustment has been made, particularly , for payment of PF and ESCI beyond the period provided u/s 43B of the Act or beyond the period provided Tara Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd 2 ITA No. 1194/MUM/2025 Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in holding amendment to 43B and 36(1)(va) are retrospective while & 163256/- made by CPC, Bangalore on account of delayed deposit of 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case ebatable issues can be subjected to addition/ adjustment while processing of ROl for issue of intimation u/s 22 overlooking w.e.f 01-04- . 2 of the appeal was not pressed on behalf of the assessee and therefore, same is dismissed as infructuous. As far as ground No. 1 of the appeal is concerned, the assessee with the disallowance of employees contribution to the and employee estate insurance corporate (ESIC) which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. d. 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee however relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT TAXC No. 56 3. We have heard rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. We have seen the impugned order u/s 143(1)(a) tax Act, 1961( In short the Act). In said order, we are not able to find under which particular sub section adjustment has and ESCI beyond the period provided u/s 43B of the Act or beyond the period provided Printed from counselvise.com under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. finding of fact, we feel it appropriate to setaside the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act to the file of fresh speaking order in accordance with law with clear reasoning for the adjustment. Accordingly, the grounds assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Tara Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 1194/MUM/2025 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In absence of this primary finding of fact, we feel it appropriate to setaside the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act to the file of the Assessing officer to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law with clear reasoning for the adjustment. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is nounced in the open Court on 31/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Tara Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd 3 ITA No. 1194/MUM/2025 of this primary finding of fact, we feel it appropriate to setaside the order passed the Assessing officer to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law with clear reasoning of appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /07/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "