PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SH. YOGVIR SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 517 / 2023HC Delhi12 September 20232 pages
For Petitioner: ZOHEB HOSSAIN
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the assessee and listed the appeal for further hearing. The revenue argues that the Tribunal's order is unsustainable in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted additions made on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF and ESI. The revenue is appealing this deletion.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI due to delayed deposit is valid, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),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.

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 517/2023 and CM APPL. 46717/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Standing Counsel.

versus

SH. YOGVIR SINGH

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R %

12.09.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] 1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Via the instant appeal the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 3. The record shows that the respondent/assessee’s return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”], at which point in time addition amounting to Rs.16,82,56,315/- was made to the declared income. 3.1. This addition was made on account of disallowance of employee contribution made towards EPF and ESI. It appears that this addition was made as there was delay in depositing the said amounts before the due date. In this regard recourse was taken under Section 143(1)(a)(iv), read with ITA 517/2023

page 1 of 2

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:34:27

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. On a rectification application filed by the respondent/assessee, the addition was scaled down to Rs.3,00,26,766/-. 5. In an appeal filed by the respondent/assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] via order dated 04.04.2022 upheld the aforementioned addition. 6. It is in this background the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal with the Tribunal. The Tribunal via the impugned order dated 26.04.2022 deleted the additions. 7. Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned senior standing counsel, says that the order cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1423. 8. Issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including e- mail. 9. Notice will be accompanied by the order passed today. 10. List the appeal on 11.12.2023.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 / tr

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 517/2023

page 2 of 2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:34:27

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 →