MAHESH KUMAR SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5344/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 July 2026AY 2018-195 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 found that the issue of ESI/PF disallowance had been adjudicated in favour of the department by the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Therefore, the assessee's arguments against the disallowance were rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by a disallowance of Rs. 12,62,340/- under section 36(1)(va) for delayed ESI/PF contributions. The assessee argued that such a disallowance could not be made under section 143(1) processing.

What were the issues?

Whether a disallowance for delayed ESI/PF contributions can be made under section 143(1) processing, and the applicability of Supreme Court decisions on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC” NEW DELHI

Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

This assessee’sappeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises

against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)-

2, [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Pune’s DIN & Order No

ITBA/APUS/250/2025-26/1087538697 dated 18.03.2026

involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act,

1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.5344/Del/2026 2. Learned counsel states at the outset that the

assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against both the learned

lower authorities’ action u/s 143(1) invoking section 36(1)(va)

ESI/PF disallowance amounting to Rs. 12,62,340/- as upheld in

the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, the

assessee’s first and foremost contention is that such a

disallowance could not have been made in section 143(1)

processing which is found to be already adjudicated in the

department’s favour in Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. vs

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2025] 178 taxmann.com

207 (Delhi).

3.

Learned counsel’s further submission is that hon’ble apex

court in the very case in SLP (C) No. 1532/2026 admitted on

08.09.2026 has treated the instant issue of ESI/PF disallowance

as involving conflicting views from various high courts; reading as

under:

“ ”

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5344/Del/2026

3 | P a g e

ITA No.5344/Del/2026

4 | P a g e

ITA No.5344/Del/2026

4.

Faced with this situation, I find that for the reasons best

known to the concerned assessee, it had not brought into light

hon’ble apex court’s “larger” bench decision in Checkmate

Services (P) Ltd. vs CIT 2022 448 ITR 518(SC) having already

adjudicated the very issue in the department’s favour. I thus

find merit in the Revenue’s vehement contentions herein to reject

the assessee’s instant twin arguments against the impugned

disallowance in very terms.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2026. Sd/ (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23.07.2026 SR BHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

5 | P a g e

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 →