LATE SUNIL BILORIA L/H ROHAN BILORIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO/ COMM. CIRCLE 61(1) DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1900/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 July 2026AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that ESI/PF dues must be credited before the statutory due date, not the return filing due date, as per Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions. This disallowance is permissible under section 143(1) processing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose from a disallowance of ESI/PF claims totaling Rs. 18,43,960/-. The disallowance was made during the CPC's section 143(1) processing and upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether ESI/PF dues disallowed for non-payment by the return filing due date can be invoked in section 143(1) processing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI RENU JAUHRI

Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 20.07.2026

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/Add/. JCIT(A)-3 (for short, “the CIT(A)”), Mumbai’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1068178514(1), dated 30.08.2024, involving proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s/Revenue’s condonation averments, delay of 480 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It next transpires with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s ESI/PF claim; totaling to Rs. 18,43,960/- in the CPC’s section143(1) processing as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

That being the case, there is hardly any dispute that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) (FB) has already settled the issue against the assessee and in favour of the department that the impugned ESI/PF dues ought to be credited in the prescribed account on or before the “due” date under the corresponding statute than that of filing section 139(1) return. This is indeed coupled with the fact that hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) had further settled the issue that such

a disallowance could indeed be invoked in section 143(1) processing as well. Faced with this situation, we find we find no merit in the assessee’s instant substantive ground which is hereby declined in very terms. It is further made clear before parting that we have not commented anything upon merits on appellant’s claim herein as the legal representative of the deceased assessee at this syage.

7.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20.07.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →