AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.09.2025 of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Nagpur (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No.: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080733429(1) arising out of the order dated 16.05.2021 u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ADIT, CPC for AY: 2018-19.
On hearing both sides we find that assesse has raised a ground that adjustments were made in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act with regard to alleged delay in deposit on contributions of Labour Welfare Fund and ld. CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (2022) 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Raj Kumar Bothra Vs. DCIT (2025) 174 taxmann.com 1199 (Chhattisgarh) and Coordinate Bench decision in the case of A2Z Infra Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2025) 176 taxmann.com 639 (Delhi- Trib.) to contend that such disallowance u/s 143(1)(a) was not sustainable.
Ld. DR has however, relied the impugned order and submitted that in fact assesse has preferred appeal against order u/s 154 of the Act before ld. CIT(A) and had not challenged the intimation u/s 143(1).
After going through the impugned order we find that ld. CIT(A) in para 6 has decided the issue against the assesse by sustaining the disallowance made by the assessing officer and for completeness relevant facts in para 6 are reproduced below:
“6.In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1 (Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016), the issue regarding the allowability of employees' contribution to PF and ESI stands conclusively settled. The Apex Court has held that such contributions, being covered under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act, are allowable as deduction only when deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes, and that payment made after the due date, even if before the due date of filing return under section 139(1), does not qualify for deduction. Since in the present case the appellant admittedly deposited employees' contribution of Rs. 76,65,883/- beyond the statutory due dates, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(va) is in accordance with law and is upheld. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that, the order of the AO needs no interference and therefore, the order of AO is confirmed and the addition made is sustained. Thus, all the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant stand dismissed.”
We further find that this issue has been dealt by Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Raj Kumar Bothra (supra) and after taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had concluded as follows:
“17.Concludingly, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer should not have resorted to the provisions contained under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 and instead could have resorted to the provisions under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961, as on the date of issuance of intimation order dated 16.12.2021 by the Assessing Officer, exercising power under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, the subject issue was highly debatable and ultimately, that issue was resolved by their Lordships in the matter of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd (supra) on a later date.”
The Coordinate Bench in the case of A2Z Infra Services Ltd. (supra) has relied the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court and deleted the disallowance. We are thus inclined to follow the settled proposition and allow the appeal of the assesse. The impugned disallowance is deleted.