Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1277 - AT - Income TaxIssues: 1. Confirmation of addition made in the intimation U/s 143(1) by the CIT(A) 2. Confirmation of addition made by the CPC, Bangalore invoking provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act 3. Due date for payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) 4. Violation of principles of natural justice in the assessment order 5. Admissibility of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition made in the intimation U/s 143(1) by the DCIT. The assessee contended that the addition was unlawful and arbitrary, as the issue was debatable on facts and law. However, as the assessee failed to appear during the hearing, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, where it was held that employees' contributions are deductible if paid before the statutory due date. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the appeal. 2. The addition of Rs. 40,91,341 made by the CPC, Bangalore under section 43B of the Income Tax Act was also challenged. The assessee argued that the due date for payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESI should be reckoned from the date of payment of salary/wages to employees, not when salaries become due. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case, held that the due date for claiming tax deduction for employees' contribution is the statutory due date, not the ROI due date. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. 3. The issue of due date for payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) was extensively discussed. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between employer's contribution and employees' contribution, highlighting that the latter retains its character as income and must be deposited by the due date to qualify for deduction. The Tribunal noted that failure to comply with the conditions of Section 36(1)(va) renders the claim vulnerable to rejection. The Tribunal, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling, held that the employees' contributions must be deposited by the statutory due date for tax deduction eligibility. 4. The assessee contended that the assessment order was in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and proceeded to dismiss the appeal based on the substantive tax law issues discussed. 5. The assessee sought to produce additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. However, as the Tribunal found the main issues to be decided based on existing records and legal interpretations, the request for additional evidence was not entertained. In conclusion, the ITAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities and relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation regarding the due date for payment of employees' contributions to PF/ESI. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with statutory due dates for tax deduction eligibility under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.
|