M/S. RBK EDUCATION SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD MUMBAI vs ITO WARD -13 (3) (1) MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ई ”, मुंबई
ी बी.आर बाकरण, लेखाकार सदय एवं
ी िवकास अवथी, याियक सदय के सम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ E ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO.347/MUM/2023 [ Arising out of ITA NO.1810/MUM/2022 (A.Y.2018-19)] Income Tax Officer13(3)(1) Mumbai. ......
ाथ /Applicant बनाम Vs.

RBK Education Solutions Private Limited.

215, Atrium, 10th Floor, Opp.Divine School, JB Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059.

PAN:AACCC-5770-E .....
ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1810/मुं/2022 (िन.व.

2018-19) ITA NO.1810/MUM/2022 (A.Y.2018-19)] RBK Education Solutions Private Limited.

PAN:AACCC-5770-E ...... अपीलाथ/Appellant बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer13(3)(1) Mumbai .....
ितवादी/Respondent िवभाग ारा/Department by : Shri P.D.

Chougule करदाता ारा/Assessee by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala सुनवाई क ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 15/03//2024 घोषणा क ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 15/03/2024 2 M.A NO.347/MUM/2023 & ITA NO.1810/MUM/2022 (A.Y.2018-19)] आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue u/s.

254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] seeking rectification of order dated 10/08/2022 in ITA No.1810/Mum/2022, for assessment year 2018- 19.

2.

Shri P.D.

Chougule representing the Department submitted that the assessee in appeal had assailed the findings of CIT(A) in disallowing Employees contribution to Provident Fund(PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) as the said contributions were made by the assessee after ‘due date’ as specified under the relevant Acts.

The ld.

Departmental Representative submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Checkmate Services India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. ) Ltd. vs.

CIT, 448 ITR 518 has held that Employees contribution towards PF after the due date as specified under the Provident Fund Act is not allowable as deduction.

The Tribunal has allowed Employees share of contribution made after due date specified under the relevant Act.

3.

Shri Anuj Kisnadwala appearing on behalf of the assessee strongly opposed Miscellaneous Application by the Revenue.

He submitted that there is no mistake in the order of Tribunal as alleged by the Department.

The Tribunal passed the order in accordance with law as was prevelant at that point of time.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by both sides.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Checkmate India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs.

CIT(supra) in an unequivocal manner explained that Employees contribution deposited 3 M.A NO.347/MUM/2023 & ITA NO.1810/MUM/2022 (A.Y.2018-19)] beyond ‘due date’ as specified under the relevant Acts would not be eligible for deduction u/s.

36(1)(va) of the Act.

In light of the decision in the case of Checkmate India (Pvt.) Ltd.

Vs.

CIT (supra) we are of considered view that the , order dated 10/08/2022 in ITA No.1810/Mum/2022 needs to be is recalled.

The order dated 10/08/2022 is recalled and appeal of the assessee is restored to its original number.

5.

In the result, Miscellaneous Application by the Revenue is allowed.

6.

With the consent of both sides, the appeal of assessee was taken up for adjudication on merits.

ITA NO.1810/MUM/2022 –A.Y.

2018-19: 7.

The solitary issue raised in the appeal is disallowance of Rs.23,81,091/- on account of Employees share of contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and disallowance of Rs.3,33,015/- towards Employees share of Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC).

It is an admitted fact that assessee had deposited Employees share of contribution towards PF and ESIC after ‘due date’ as specified under the relevant Acts.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. ) Ltd. vs.

CIT(supra) has explained the legal position that to be eligible to claim deduction u/s.

36(1)(va) of the Act, the Employer is under obligation to deposit Employees share of contribution towards PF & ESIC before the ‘due date’ under the respective Laws.

8.

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the decision in the case of Checkmate Services India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs.

CIT (supra) was rendered in a case where the assessment was made u/s.

143(3) of the Act.

In the case of assessee, the return of income was processed u/s.

143(1) of the Act, hence, 4 M.A NO.347/MUM/2023 & ITA NO.1810/MUM/2022 (A.Y.2018-19)] the said decision would not apply in the instant case.

The aforesaid argument made on behalf of assessee is without any merit.

The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rohan Korgaonkar vs.

DCIT in Income Tax Appeal No.7 of 2023 decided on 07/02/2024 has clarified that whether the assessment is made u/s.

143(3) of the Act or the return of income is processed u/s.

143(1) of the Act makes no difference.

The ratio laid down in the case of Checkmate Services India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs.

CIT(supra) does not distinguish assessment made u/s.

143(3) or 143(1) of the Act.

Thus, in light of facts of the case and the decision referred above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, appeal of assessee is dismissed.

9.

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on Friday the 15th day of March, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.

BASKARAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/ Mumbai, दनांक/Dated 15/03/2024 Vm, Sr.

PS(O/S)
ितिलिप
ितिलिप
ितिलिप
ितिलिप अेिषत अेिषत अेिषत अेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ/The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयु(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt.

Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai