SATYA PRAKASH AND BROS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT - CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2192/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no difference in the declared turnover but, in the interest of justice, remanded the issue of revenue calculation to the AO for verification. The disallowance for delayed PF/ESI contributions was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order concerning additions made by the CPC due to an alleged inconsistency in revenue from operations. The assessee claimed that their declared net revenue from operations was correct after deductions from gross collected revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the CPC correctly computed the revenue from operations, and whether the disallowance for delayed employee contributions to PF & ESI is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

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: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA and Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 27.06.2025

(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2018-19) Satya Prakash and Bros Pvt. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-22(2), A1 CC Colony, Opp. Rana Vs. Delhi. Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007 PAN:AAHCS1210Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Amit Goel, CA and Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Department by Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.06.2025 O R D E R

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune (‘the CIT(A) in short), dated 28.02.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-8/10918/2019-20 vide order dated 28.02.2024.

2.

Ground of appeal

No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. The ground of appeal No. 2 in relation to the additions / adjustment of Rs.94,56,959/- made by the CPC by observing that there is inconsistency in the total revenue from operations declared by the assessee and as computed on the basis of return of income filed. In this regard, the Ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the financial statements of the assessee which contained the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account for the year under appeal. According to which, the assessee has declared total revenue from operations at Rs.62,59,78,108/-. Ld. AR further submits that in Note No.19 to the Balance Sheet, the “Revenue from operations” was stated according to which 2. IT No.1625/Del/2025 Anant Agarwal. vs. CIT(A) gross collected revenue was of Rs. 63,51,63,167/- and after reducing the amount towards sales tax of Rs.79,06,057/- and other deduction by contractees of Rs.12,79,002/-, net income revenue from operations was declared at Rs.62,59,78,108/-. However, the CPC has mistakenly consider the gross receipts as contract revenue, and therefore, he prayed that the addition made deserves to be deleted. On the alternate, is requested that the matter may be sent to the file of AO for necessary verification of the facts as stated above.

3. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supports the order of the lower authorities and requested for the confirmation of the same.

4.

Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the Note No.19 to financial statements as filed by the ld. AR during the course of hearing, it is seen that the assessee has declared gross contract revenue at Rs.63,51,63,167/- which has been taken as gross turnover by the CPC. The assessee further claimed deduction towards the sales tax and other deductions made by contractees to arrive at the figure of the not contract receipts which is declared in the return of income filed. Form these facts it appears that there is no difference in the turnover declared by the assessee, however, in the interest of justice, as requested by the Ld. AR of the assessee, this issue is sent back to the file of the AO for making necessary verification of the claim of the assessee. The AO is further directed to make verification of the turnover of the assessee from the records maintained by the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. With these directions, grounds of appeal

No. 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

5. Ground of appeal No.3 of the assessee is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.2,71,900/- made by CPC u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act being delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI. This issue has already been covered against the assessee in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. reported in (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178. Thus, by respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble

3 IT No.1625/Del/2025 Anant Agarwal. vs. CIT(A) Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (supra), we confirm the disallowance made by the CPC. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on 27/06/2025.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →