आदेश/ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 04.12.2025 for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017- 18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matters were heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.

3. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.172/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 for adjudication wherein as per Ground of appeal No.3, the assessee has assailed as follows:

“3. Ground No. III

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in affirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs.20,04,753/- invoki9ng the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution to Employees Provident Fund (EPF) beyond the due dates under the respective Acts however, deposited well before the due date prescribed for filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Hence, it is earnestly prayed that the disallowance of Rs.20,04,753/- may please be deleted.”

4. The relevant facts in this case are that the A.O had made addition on account of delayed deposit of employee’s contribution towards Employee’s Provident Fund (EPF) beyond the due dates under the respective Acts amounting to Rs.20,04,753/- u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s.43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

5. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxman.com 178 (SC) has held and observed as follows:

“8.(i). I have examined the assessment order and rival contentions on the disallowance made in respect of employees' contribution to EPF deposited beyond the due dates under the respective welfare statutes. Statutorily, section 2(24)(x) treats employees' contributions received by the employer as income; a deduction is permitted by section 36(1)(va) only if such sums are credited to the employees' accounts in the relevant fund on or before the due date under the said statutes. Section 43B, on the other hand, regulates deduction of, inter alia, employer's contribution on actual- payment basis up to the due date of filing of return under section 139(1). The provisions operate in distinct spheres. The Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT has conclusively held that section 43B does not govern employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) and cannot extend the statutory due date; amounts paid beyond the due dates under the relevant Acts are not deductible, even if paid before the return-filing due date. The Court also noted the Finance Act, 2021 insertions; Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which clarify this position. Earlier decisions that applied Alom Extrusions to employees' contributions cannot survive in view of the Supreme Court's ratio; Alom Extrusions concerned employer's contribution under section 43B and was confined thereto.

(ii). In light of the binding pronouncement in Checkmate Services, I hold that employees' contribution deposited after the due dates under the EPF enactments is not allowable under section 36(1)(va). Accordingly, the disallowance in respect of employees' contribution to the extent of Rs.20,04,753/- is confirmed for violation of Section 36(1)(va). The relevant ground is therefore dismissed.”

6. We observe that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the employee’s contributions if not deposited in respective accounts of PF & ESIC etc. within the due date prescribed in the respective statutes, in such scenario, the said amount deposited at later dates amounts to deemed income in the hands of the employer. That on si