, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 66/Ind/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Such Media Publication Private NFAC, Delhi /

Limited, ITO-2(1), Bhopal Avn Towers Plot No.192, Ground Floor Zone-1, बनाम/

Vs.

M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: AAYCS6918G Assessee by Shri Vijay Bansal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 08.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

This is a re-called matter. Originally this appeal was decided by Order dated 23.08.2022 of ITAT, Indore Bench in favour of assessee based on judicial view prevalent at that time but subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) settled the controversy finally in favour of revenue and against assessee. Therefore, the order passed by ITAT was re-called vide order dated 04.08.2023 in Misc. Application No. 11/Ind/2023 and the appeal was restored. Accordingly, this appeal has come up before this bench for hearing.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is very specific i.e. the disallowance/ addition of Rs. 1,13,146/- on account of employees’ contributions received by assessee towards Provident Fund or Employees State Insurance Fund (PF/ESI) by way of deduction from salaries but not paid to relevant funds upto the due dates prescribed under PF/ESI laws, made by AO in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) by resorting to the provisions of section

143(1)(a)(iv) r.w.s. section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. While the assessee does not have any dispute against applicability of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate (supra) wherein the such disallowance has been upheld u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x), the only grievance of assessee is that such adjustment could not have been made by AO in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) by resorting to the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv).

4. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides on this limited issue.

5. It emerged during hearing that the issue has already been decided by Hon’ble High Courts in following cases against assessee and in favour of revenue:

(i) Rohan Korgaonkar Vs. DCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 321 (Bombay HC):

“2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to challenge the orders made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT, disallowing an adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act in respect of delayed remittance of employees' contributions to Employee State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) for the assessment year 2018-

2019.

3. The ITAT, in this case, has noted that the Assessee failed to deposit contributions to ESI and PF in the employees' accounts for the relevant assessment year before the due date under the PF/ESI Acts. However, such contributions were deposited before the Assessee filed returns under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. The ITAT relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v.CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 / [2023] 290 Taxman 19 / 448 ITR 518 (SC) held that based upon such delayed deposits, noadjustments ordeductions could be claimed.

4. In Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the conflicting decisions on the subject and finally held that deductions or adjustments could be claimed only when the Assessee deposits the contribution before the due date provided under the Employees Provident Fund/ Employee State Insurance Act. If the employees' contributions are deposited afterthe due date setoutunderthe said Act, there is no question of deduction oradjustment on the ground thatsuch contributions were deposited before the filing ofreturns under section 139(1) ofthe ITAct.

5. The ITAT has relied upon Chekmate Services (P.)