STAR PAPER MILLS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1363/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 August 2026AY 2022-2310 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that delayed employee contributions to EPF/ESI are not deductible, upholding the disallowance. However, issues regarding Form 26AS additions and the delay in filing the second appeal were remanded to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI and additions based on Form 26AS. For a subsequent assessment year, the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delay.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI is deductible and whether additions based on Form 26AS require further verification. The second appeal's delay was also an issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 249(3),Section 143(3),Section 41

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 1362 & 1363/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 & 2022-23 Star Paper Mills Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Vs. Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAECS0759B Appearances: Assessee represented by : Akkal Dudhewala, CA. Department represented by : Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT(DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 20.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.08.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru and Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2014-15 and 2022-23 dated 09.02.2026 and 11.02.2026 respectively. Since both the appeals are related, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1362/KOL/2026; AY 2014-15: 1. (a) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities grossly erred on facts and in law in disallowing the sum of

7.

As regards Ground No. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition was made on the basis of Form No. 26AS, which was not correct and the and the proportionate claim of TDS was also denied. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and budding the issue before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for considering the reconciliation to be filed with assessee and recompute the disallowance of any. Hence, this Ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1362/KOL/2026 for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Now, we shall take up ITA No. 1363/KOL/2026 for AY 2022-23 for adjudication. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for the AY 2022-23 on 27.09.2022 declaring the total income at ₹39,58,12,140/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru (“the Ld. AO”), wherein adjustments were made to the returned income; specifically, an addition of ₹10,07,12,247/- was made u/s 41 of the Act due to an inconsistency in the amount of profit chargeable to tax specified in the

“This appeal has been preferred against the intimation order passed by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act. The appellant humbly prays that the delay of 194 days in filling of the instant appeal be condoned. In this regard it is submitted that, in the intimation, the CPC had effectively assessed the same sum of liabilities written back amounting to Rs.10,07,12,247/-, twice, thereby resulting in a case of double addition. The company was advised that this being a mistake capable of being rectified, the same ought to be taken up with the online processing team of the CPC. Accordingly, the company had been filed a rectification application in the nature of reprocessing of return before the CPC. However, in the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 27.05.2024, the CPC failed to rectify the impugned issue, being double addition of the same income. Accordingly, the company having realized that the CPC is incapable of rectifying the impugned issue, has decided now to immediately file an appeal against the intimation u/ s 143(1) and seek deletion of the double addition so made to the total income, noting that the filing of an appeal is a mutually exclusive grievance redressal mechanism available before the appellant company. From the foregoing facts, it shall be appreciated that the delay in filing of appeal was born out of bonafide inadvertence and in that view of the matter, the company, prays that your goodself liberally exercise the power to condone the delay so that the appellant may be granted an opportunity to seek natural justice.” 10. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide his finding as under:

“3. It is seen from the facts of the case that the appellant filed the appeal on 17-Jun-2024 against order dated 01-Nov-2023 and the same was received by

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

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 →