PRIME COMFORT PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 1262/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the assessing authority for re-computation. The AO was directed to ensure that no double disallowance or additions were made in the hands of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose from an order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue involved additions/disallowances made by the AO relating to employee PF and ESIC contributions and other disallowances under section 40(a)(ia).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance/addition made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) for employee PF and ESIC contributions resulted in double addition, and if the addition was outside the scope of section 143(1) processing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Sharma, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.07.2025Pronounced: 28.7.2025

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the NFAC’s Delhi DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035808840(1) dated 22.09.2021, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds:-

1.

That under the facts and circumstances Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on merits in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

2

2.

That under the facts and circumstances the AO at CPC erred in law and on merits in making addition / adjustment of Rs. 12,88,983/-

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →