TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. For the said Intimation, the assessee has filed a rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act on 19/04/2019 to re-process the return by deleting the additions made on the ground that the amount recovered from the employees were remitted well before the due date of filing the Income tax returns. The officer at CPC has proceeded to pass the order u/s. 154 in CPC communication reference no: CPC/1718/06/1902152037 dt 14/05/2019 rejecting the claim and served the same on the assessee on 28/05/2019. The assessee against the intimation/order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") i.e., AO, CPC, u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.05.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 relevant to the Previous Year (PY) 2016-17. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC)] dated 12.10.2022, confirmed the disallowance as under: 5.1. The main contention of the appellant is with regard to addition made of Rs. 17,28,945/- on account of delay in payment of the ESI & PF on or before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the PF & ESI payments were not amenable to adjustment u/s. 143(1) and hence the appeal filed against the order u/s. 154 passed by the CPC ought to be allowed. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT reported in [2025] 476 ITR 249 which held as under: 13. Coming back to the facts of the present case, while following the principles of law laid down in above stated judgments of the Supreme Court for exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, it is quite vivid that on the date of issuance of intimation order by the Assessing Officer i.e. on 16.12.2021 under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, the issue as to whether the delayed deposit of employees' share of contribution towards Employees State Insurance and Employees Provident Fund, though deposited by the assessee beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, but before the due date of filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act of 1961, could be held as the income of the appellant/assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case (supra), is no longer a dispute and well settled as the law declared by a Court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically. However, the retrospective effect of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. (supra) is not an issue involved in present case, as the question involved herein was quite different as to whether Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 can be resorted to when there is highly debatable issue. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the Revenue are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 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. 18. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal in the case of DCIT, Circle-1, Tirupur v. M/s. Amazing Export Corporation & Others in MA No.202 & 203/Chny/2022 for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 order dated 01.08.2023 which held as under: 1. By way of captioned Miscellaneous Applications, the Revenue seeks our indulgence in Tribunal order passed in captioned appeals on 11.04.2022. The revenue has filed similar applications in bunch of appeals seeking restoration / rectification of order on identical grounds. All these applications were heard together and opportunity was given to learned authorized representatives of all the assessees to meet out the applications filed by the revenue. The captioned applications were also heard along with that bunch. It was admitted position that the adjudication in lead applications would apply to all the other similar applications filed by the revenue. The lead order has now been passed by the bench in MA Nos. 97/Chny/2022 & 11/Chny/2023 от 31.07.2023 wherein the applications of revenue has been allowed and the issue, on merits, has been decided against the assessee considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs CIT (143 Taxmann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the due dates prescribed under the respective enactments. Therefore, in light of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the disallowance of Rs. 17,28,945/- made by CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified. The argument that the issue was debatable at the time of processing and, therefore, could not be adjusted under section 143(1)(a), is also not tenable in view of the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal. In TalentPro India HR Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) and DCIT v. Amazing Export Corporation & Others (supra), it was held that adjustment for late payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESI can be made under section 143(1)(a), based on information available in the tax audit report (Form 3CD), since it is a clear and quantifiable item of disallowance. 9. We have carefully considered the judgment relied upon by the assessee. In Raj Kumar Bothra (supra), the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court held that at the time when the return was processed (i.e., prior to the judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.), the issue regarding delayed deposit of employees' contributions was debatable and hence could not form p....