TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and against the provisions of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld impugned order u/s 154 without verifying facts and merits of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld total additions of Rs. 63,96,368/- made u/s 154 on account of misreporting and late payment of employee EPF/ESI. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld additions of Rs. 11,92,150/- which was merely due to misreporting in Form 3CD. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld additions of Rs. 52,04,218/- on account of late payment of employee share of EPF/ESI, as the payment was duly made prior of filing of income Tax Return. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly not considered revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24) (x), thus said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. 6.13 In light of the above discussion, provisions of the Income Tax Act,1961 and the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement in Checkmate Services (P). Ltd. (supra), it is concluded that the action of the AO, CPC in making an addition of Rs63,96,368/- to the total income of the appellant for the AY 2020-21 in the facts of the case is absolutely within the purview of the Income Tax Act,1961 and do not call for any interference. 4. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was highly, contested with the conflicts view of the courts. In the case of T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers clearly held that when two views are possible the issue cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record under section 154 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the judgement in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. On 12- 10-2022 whereas the Ld. CPC passed the rectification order earlier, on 04-10-2022. The issue was not gotten finality on the date of order. He further submitted that asper section 36(1) (va) of the Act, the employer can deduct employee welfare contributions for PF & ESI if the amount deposited by the due date set by those welfare laws. He also submitted that before the due date assessee mus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act of 1961 can be restored 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. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the AO should have restored to the provisions contained under s.143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 as on the date of issuance of intimation order dt.27th Feb, 2020 by the AO, exercising power under s.143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, the subject issue was highly debatable and ultimately, the issue was resolved by their Lordships in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (supra) on a later date. 18.As a fallout and consequence of above -stated discussion, the prima facie disallowance of impugned contribution toward....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5] 178 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi) (08-09-2025) wherein relying on the decision of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs. CIT held that for the A.Y.2019-20 disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for employee's contribution to ESI/PF that was deposited by assessee-employer after due date prescribed in PF/ESI Acts but before due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act is valid. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. V. CIT had also considered Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 185 Taxman 416 (SC) and distinguished the same by observing that the judgement had not considered section 2(24) (x) and 36(1)(va) of the Act, and also the separate provisions for employers' and employees' contr....