SPECIAL EXECUTIVE PROTECTION (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowing the assessee's claim for ESI/PF deduction under section 143(1) processing was not appropriate as it involved a debatable issue.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose from a disallowance of ESI/PF contribution claimed as deduction, which was upheld by the lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of employee's ESI/PF contribution is permissible under section 143(1) processing when it involves a debatable issue?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority390 citing143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · SC
- Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT16 citing174 Taxmann.com 1199 · 2025 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 08.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 7, Kolkata’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1073519576(1), dated 20.02.2025 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.
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 12.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt Ltd., Meerut vs ACIT Circle, MeerutDelhi12 Aug 2025Allowed
Also relies on Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that a disallowance based on a highly debatable issue cannot be made under section 143(1) processing. The assessee's argument regarding the nature of the issue was found to have merit.
- Tinna Rubber and Infrastructure Ltd, Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-25(1), DelhiDelhi31 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that a debatable issue like the disallowance of delayed ESI/PF contributions cannot be dealt with under Section 143(1) processing. Such matters require a detailed scrutiny under Section 143(3).
- S vs Guarding Services Pvt Ltd, Haryanavs.ITO…Delhi8 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT and 1 other authority
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 R...
- Sunil Kumar, Alwar Rajasthan vs ITO Ward 3, RewariDelhi23 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI/PF contribution under Section 143(1) was incorrect as the issue was highly debatable at the time of processing. The Assessing Officer should have resorted to Section 143(3) ...
- Manmegh Singh Kanwar, Uttar Pradesh vs ITO, Ward-73(1), DelhiDelhi28 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on Raj Kumar Bothra v. DCIT
The Tribunal held that since the Section 143(1) intimation was passed before the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contributions was not permissible at that s...
More judgments on Section 139(1)
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
