S vs. GUARDING SERVICES PVT LTD,HARYANAVS.ITO WARD 22(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2453/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no such disallowance could be made under section 143(1) processing, finding merit in the assessee's legal argument that the issue involved was highly debatable. The decision followed the case law Raj Kumar Bothra Vs. DCIT.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2019-20 arises against an order involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The lower authorities disallowed the assessee's claim of ESI/PF deduction representing employees' contribution.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of ESI/PF deduction representing employees' contribution is permissible under section 143(1) processing for a highly debatable issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 08.07.2025Pronounced: 08.07.2025

Date of hearing 08.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 3, Hyderabad’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1072681881(1), dated 29.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s claim of ESI/PF deduction representing employees’ contribution; in the CPC’s processing dated 01.05.2020 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that the instant issue is no more res-integra in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) to the effect that the corresponding due date has to be seen as per relevant statue than that of filing of section 139(1) return. The assessee’s case on the other hand quotes the case law Raj Kumar Bothra Vs. DCIT, (2025) 174 taxmann.com 1199 (Chhattisgarh) that no such disallowance could be made in section 143(1) processing since involving a highly debatable issue post-facto Checkmate Services hereinabove. That being the case, I hereby find merit in the assessee’s foregoing legal argument that no such disallowance could be made under section 143(1) processing.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

2 | P a g e Order pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2025

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 →