IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.4924/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2013-14 Sol Entertainment Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Ward 11(2)(3)

903-904, 9^th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, MK Krushal Commercial Road, Mumbai – 400 Complex, Above Stoppers 020.

stop, MG Road, Chembur Mumbai - 400089 PAN – AAPCS6369A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Kavit Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:

The present appeals have been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order dt. 07.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14.

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly. After going through the case file, we noticed that even on the last date of hearings assessee had sought adjournment, thus, on the said request of the assessee matter was fixed for arguments for today i.e 10.11.2025 but still neither the assessee nor his representative appeared when the case was called repeatedly. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the present case ex-

parte.

3. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act.

4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with this ground in para No. 6.1(i) of its order and the same is reproduced herein below:

6.1 I have considered the AO's order and the submissions made by the appellant. In this regard, it is reiterated that the present appeal is filed by the appellant against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appellant filed its return of income on 28.09.2013, declaring a loss of Rs. 1,43,25,343/-. The case was selected for scrutinyunder CASS, and statutory notices were issued. In response, the appellant submitted details and supporting documents through the e-filing portal.

After examining the submissions, the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 143(3), assessing loss at Rs. 73,30,037/- by making additions under various heads, including (i) Rs. 12,18,673/- under section 36(1)(va) for delay in employees' PF/ESIC deposit; (ii) Rs.57,76,633/- on account of disallowance of current year loss; and (iii) computing book profit under section 115JB at Rs. 3,15,57,598/- after adding back Rs. 4,52,00,000/- as revaluation reserve. Aggrieved, the appellant has raised four grounds of appeal. The same are discussed here-in- below:

(i) The first ground of appeal pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 12,18,673/- under section 36(1) (va) of the Act being delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). The appellant contended that the said contributions, though not deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare statutes (i.e., the EPF Act and the ESIC Act), were nonetheless deposited before the due date for filing return under section 139(1), and hence allowable under section 43B. In support, the appellant relied on earlier judgments including CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. and Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (Bom HC).

This submission, however, is no longer sustainable in law in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)]. In that case, the Supreme Court dealt directly with the disallowance of employees' contributions to welfare funds under section 36(1)(va) and held that the benefit of section 43B is available only for employer's contributions, and not for e