SANJEEV KUMAR,CHAMBA,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO WARD, DALHOUSIE, CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 877/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 July 2026AY 2020-212 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal de novo on merits without considering the delay. If the assessee's claims of double disallowance and timely deposits are correct, the adjustment will be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an adjustment made by CPC for late payment of PF/ESI, which the assessee claims is a double disallowance and includes deposits made within the due date. The first appeal was dismissed for delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the adjustment for late payment of PF/ESI constitutes a double disallowance and if certain deposits were made within the due date.

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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.877/CHANDI/2026 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Sanjeev Kumar ITO, Ward Surangani, Village Hathni बनाम/ Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Dalhousie Chamba, Himachal Pradesh – 176310 Himachal Pradesh – 176303 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AHSPK-9819-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) - Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 14-07-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 22-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020- 21 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [CIT(A)] dated 16.01.2026 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) making disallowance of late payment of PF / ESI u/s 36(1)(va). The registry has noted delay of 63 days in the appeal which stand condoned. The Ld. AR stated that the impugned adjustment is double disallowance since the said adjustment was already been done by the assessee in the computation of income. The Ld. AR also stated that few of the

deposits were made within due date and therefore, the same has wrongly been disallowed. The Ld. Sr. DR stated that the first appeal has been dismissed for want of condonation of delay of 748 days. 2. Apparently, the assessee has suffered double disallowance and therefore, the delay in first appeal should have been condoned. Nevertheless, I set aside the impugned order and direct Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of appeal on merits without raising the issue of delay. If the double disallowance claim as well as deposit within time claim of the assessee is found correct, the impugned adjustment would stand deleted. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith. 3. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22nd July, 2026. -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 22/07/2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH

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 →