M/S. KUSHANG SECURITY AND HOUSE KEEPING SERVICE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(1)(1), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT
&
SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
M/s. Kushang Security
& House Keeping
Service Pvt. Ltd.
760 Ambika Wadi,
Saltpan Road, Wadala-
East, Mumbai- 400037
Vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC Delhi
ITO 41(1)(1)- Bandra BKC,
Delhi- 110001
PAN: AAECK7685C
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)
Assessee by Shri. Gunjan Kakkad
Revenue by Shri. Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Date of Hearing
22/09/2025
Date of Pronouncement
24/09/2025
Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act
PER ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC, Delhi (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) dated 10-03-2023 for the AY 2019-20, which in turn arises from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘The Act’) dated 13-05-2020
issued by Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangaluru in short ‘Ld. AO’).
M/s. Kushang Security and House Keeping Service P LTd.
2
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: “On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi erred in facts and in law in confirming disallowance of Employee's Contribution to PF Act of Rs 1,90,12,166/- and confirming double disallowance of PF Damages of Rs 4,85,833/- without granting further opportunity of being heard to appellant representative before passing final order as the appellant could not respond to the notices due to circumstances beyond the control. Without Prejudice to above, the appellant further submits that. 1) On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi erred in facts and in law in confirming disallowance of Employee's contribution to PF Act of Rs 1,90,12,166/- paid on or before due date & confirming double disallowance of PF damages of Rs 4,85,833/- even though the same was already disallowed in the computation. The appellant prays that disallowance/addition made should be deleted and relief to be granted to the appellant based on various judgements and pronouncements by various courts. 2) Order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi being contrary to law, evidence and facts of the case deserves to be set aside, amended or modified. 3) The appellant humbly prays that the order of honorable CIT(A) NFAC, New Delhi should be set aside & the appellant be given a fresh opportunity of being heard by Honorable CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. 4) It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed here-in-above and/or such other reliefs as may be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and as may meet the ends of justice should be granted. 5) Your appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the rights to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidences, documents and papers as may be necessary.”
At the outset it is noticed that the appeal of assessee is barred by limitation, being filed with a delay of 699 days. To explained the delay involved it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee’s accountant on which the entire tax work and checking of email was entrusted had left the company in the month of January 2023, hence the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) went totally unnoticed. Later, the appellant came to know about the order passed by M/s. Kushang Security and House Keeping Service P LTd. 3
Ld CIT(A) dated 10-03-2023 in the month of April-2025, while checking the status of appeal on ITBA portal. It is submitted that the delay occurred was unintentional and circumstances beyond control of the assessee. After considering the petition of assessee for condonation of delay, it can be construed from the facts of the case that the assessee had not attended any hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), whereas, as per information furnished before us, there are instances that the assessee had paid substantial amount of employee’s contribution within the permissible due dates under the respective statute and had a justified claim to be allowed as per law for such payments.
Accordingly, we find bonafide in assessee’s submission that the delay was occurred due to inadvertent reasons beyond the control of assessee with no reason to deliberately do so. The delay in filing of appeal therefore condoned and pronounced in the court, to which Ld. CITDR did not objected.
Briefly stated, the assessee’s return of income dated 30-09-2019 was processed by the CPC and issued intimation u/s 143(1) on 13-05-2025. The assessee had declared total income of Rs. 33,40,890/- in its return of income, however the assessed income as per intimation u/s 143(1) was determine at Rs. 2,28,38,892/-. Further assessee opted to apply for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, which was proceeded by the CPC and passed an order u/s 154 on 20.10.2020 with the same income as was assessed under intimation u/s 143(1). M/s. Kushang Security and House Keeping Service P LTd. 4
The appellant again filed the rectification application u/s 154 to which another order u/s 154 was passed on 03.04.2021 determining the assessed income of Rs. 2,28,38,892/-, again.
Being aggrieved assessee preferred and appeal before the first appellate authority wherein the assessee remain non compliant towards the notice issued u/s 250 of the Act, dated 22.11.2022, 15.12.2022, 29.12.2022 and 02.03.2023. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on ex-parte basis after considering the matter on merits by following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Checkmate Service Pvt Limited vs CIT dated 12.10.2022 in civil appeal No. 2833/2016. 6. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT, which is under consideration before us in the present matter.
At the outset Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was not passed with correct appreciation of the facts, as the assessee was unbale to furnish necessary information before him. Ld.AR further submitted that the disallowances vide intimation u/s 143(1) consist of delayed payment of Employee Contribution to Provident Fund and PF damages M/s. Kushang Security and House Keeping Service P LTd. 5
(which were already disallowed by the assessee in computation) but added again in the business income of the assessee in the intimation u/s 143(1). To assail on the controversy, Ld. AR raised multiple contentions i.e. (i) the Employee Contribution which were paid before the date of filing of return is an allowable expenditure in terms of provision u/s 43(B) of the Act. (ii) the Employee’s Contribution to PF which is paid before the due date of payment, as stipulated in the respective Acts, as per the provision of u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, (iii) That the amount of PF damages which were already suo moto disallowed by the assessee in computation cannot be added back to the assessee’s income otherwise that would constitute double disallowance and (iv)
That the issue qua delay in deposit of Employee’s Contribution to Provident
Fund, if the same is paid before the due date of filing of return would be an allowable expenditure, at the time of passing of 143(1) i.e. 13.05.2020 was decided by the Juri ictional High Court in the favour of the assessee. In order to substantiate the aforesaid contention, Ld. AR placed his reliance on the following decision of DCIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. [2017] 81
taxmann.com 203(SC), CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. [2003]
130 Taxman 67 (SC), Vaibhav Maruti Dombale vs.