ENSEMBLE HEALTH PARTNERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR 1(1) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1076/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 August 2026AY 2022-237 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an inadvertent reporting or typographical error in the Tax Audit Report should not lead to disallowance if payments were made in time. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of deposit challans.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed under section 143(1) where an adjustment was made disallowing employees' PF/ESI contributions due to alleged late payment. This was based on information in Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report.

What were the issues?

Whether an adjustment under section 143(1) disallowing employee contributions to PF/ESI is permissible due to a clerical error in the Tax Audit Report when actual payments were timely.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE BEFORE: SHRIMANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & SH. RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1076/Chd/2026 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Ensemble Health Partners India बनाम The DCIT / ACIT, Private Limited, Cir 1(1), 201, Bestech Business Tower, Chandigarh Bestech Square, Sector 66, Mohali Punjab 160055 �ायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AACCI9671A अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रतीकीओरसे/Assessee by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज�कीओरसे/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Add. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.08.2026 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10.08.2026 आदेश/Order PER RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, J.M: The present appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dt. 27.02.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for assessment year 2022-23.

2 1076/Chd/2026 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 now Companies Act, 2013 deriving income under the head Profit and Gains from Business or Profession and Income from Other Sources during the Assessment Year 2022-23.For the Assessment Year 2022-23, the Assessee filed its return of income on 26 November 2022, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,78,16,830. The tax audit report in Form 3CA3CD was filed electronically on 30 September 2022.

3.

While processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, mechanically made an adjustment of Rs. 15,14,141/- by invoking section 36(1)(va) of the Act, purporting to disallow the employees contribution to Employees State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) on the sole ground that the said contributions were allegedly paid beyond the due dates stipulated under the respective ESI and PF statutes. The CPC derived this conclusion exclusively from certain entries in Clause 20(b) of Form 3CA3CD furnished along with the tax audit report.

4.

Against the intimation passed U/s 143(1) of the IT Act dated 21.02.2023, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax, (Appeals)-3, Chennai. Then after the

3 1076/Chd/2026 appellate proceedings were transferred to the Addl/JCIT(Appeals)- 3,Chennai.

5.

The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :

“7.4 However, it is observed that the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD is a statutory document certified by an independent Chartered Accountant under section 44AB of the Act. The particulars reported therein form the primary basis for processing under section 143(1). In the present case, no revised Tax Audit Report has been filed. Further, no written confirmation, affidavit, or clarification from the Tax Auditor has been produced acknowledging the alleged clerical error in reporting the dates in Clause 20(b). In the absence of any formal rectification or certification from the auditor reconciling the discrepancy between the audit report and the appellant's subsequent submissions, the original reporting in Form 3CD cannot be ignored. Mere submission of challans, without an authenticated reconciliation certified by the auditor, does not conclusively establish that the reporting in the audit report was erroneous.” 6. Aggrieved against the order passed by the CIT(A), theAssessee preferred an appeal before Tribunal.

7.

Before us, theld. AR contends that the aforesaid additions is wholly erroneous both on facts and in law stating that all employees’ contributions towards ESI and PF pertaining to the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2022-23 were, in fact, deposited well within

4 1076/Chd/2026 the respective statutory periods prescribed under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. He further stated that the apparent discrepancy noticed by the CPC arose solely on account of an inadvertent error committed by the tax auditor while reporting the actual dates of payment of Employees Contribution towards ESI and PF in the relevant columns of Form 3CA 3CD. Such clerical or reporting infirmity in the tax audit report cannot override the substantive fact of timely payment duly evidenced by challans and official receipts. The Ld. AR further stated that Revised audit report has also been produced correcting the date of deposit ofPF.

8.

The Ld. AR further stated that a settled legal position, affirmed by various Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal including the jurisdictional Chandigarh Bench in the case of M/s Sunrise Facilitators Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 689/Chd/2023, order dated 18 August 2025), wherein, under materially identical facts, the Tribunal has categorically held that an adjustment under section 143(1) invoking section 36(1)(va) is impermissible when actual payment is established to be within the statutory due date, notwithstanding any error in the tax audit report. The Ld AR also relied upon the judgment in case of DCIT Cir 4(2), New

5 1076/Chd/2026 Delhi vs CNH Industrial (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA No.305/Del/2025) [Delhi Tribunal].

9.

It has further been statedby the Ld. AR that despite the actual payments being well within the prescribed timelines, the CPC has proceeded to make the impugned adjustment of Rs. 15,14,141 in a purely mechanical manner, without affording the Assessee any opportunity of being heard and in complete disregard of the statutory scheme and binding judicial pronouncements. The Ld AR also produced detailsof deposits,month wise deposit of PF in tabulated format alongwith challans.

10.

The Ld DR relied upon the order of the CIT (Appeals).

11.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.It is observed that while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act, the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, made an adjustment amounting to Rs. 15,14,141/- by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowing the employees’ contribution to Provident Fund (PF) on the premise that the same was deposited beyond the statutory due dates. The CPC arrived at this conclusion based on the details mentioned in Clause 20(b) of Form 3CD accompanying the Tax Audit Report.

6 1076/Chd/2026 12. However, the primary grievance of the assessee is that an inadvertent typographical error occurred while uploading the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD, wherein the dates of deposit of PF for the months of January 2022, February 2022, and March 2022 were incorrectly entered as 06.01.2021, 10.02.2021, and 09.03.2021, respectively. It is submitted that the actual payments were made within the prescribed due dates, and the apparent mismatch arose purely due to a clerical mistake.

13.

In our considered view, an inadvertent reporting or typographical error in the Tax Audit Report should not lead to an unmerited disallowance if the statutory payments were, in fact, deposited in time. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore this limited issue back to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) for proper verification.The assessee is directed to furnish certified copies of the PF deposit challans, duly verified and certified by a Chartered Accountant, before the Assessing Officer. If, upon verification, the challans demonstrate that the payments for the period from January 2022 to March 2022 were made within the statutory timeline, the Assessing Officer shall allow the deduction of ₹15,14,141/- in accordance with law.We hereby clarify that this matter is remitted back to Ld. Assessing Officer strictly for the limited purpose of verifying these deposit receipts.

7 1076/Chd/2026 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2026.

-Sd- -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ) (RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER rkk आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयआिधकरण, च�ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड�फाईल/ Guard File

सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

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 →