GEO CONNECT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT(OSD), DELHI, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1588/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders did not examine whether the deposits were made according to the interpretation of 'due date' as per the relevant statute, despite a Supreme Court ruling. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning the disallowance made for delayed deposit of EPF and ESI. The assessee contended that the deposits were made as per the due dates specified in the relevant statutes.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance for delayed deposit of EPF and ESI was justified without verifying the 'due date' as per the relevant statutes and considering the applicable Supreme Court judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Ms Bharti Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

Assessment Year: 2020-21 Geo Connect Ltd., Vs ACIT (OSD), 110, Indra Prakash Building, Delhi 21, Barakhamba Road, Delhi - 110 001. PAN: AAECS2401C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata.

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that primarily the dispute concerns the disallowance made on account of delayed deposit of EPF and ESI as per the prescribed periods in the relevant statute. The ld. AR submitted that the amounts were deposited in accordance with law as per the provisions of the ‘due date’ falling under the relevant statutes. The assessee claims that the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT,448 ITR 518 (SC) is not applicable and the assessee has deposited the contributions as per the relevant statutes. In the impugned orders, this fact has not been examined as to if the deposits were made according to the interpretation of “due date” as per the relevant statute.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →