THE HR STATE COOP HOUSING FEDERATION LTD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1250/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 July 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the issue of deduction for interest income was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, subject to the assessee undertaking to plant 50 trees.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose from an assessment order. The assessee remained unrepresented before the lower authorities, leading to confirmation of additions made by the AO. The additions pertained to disallowance of employees' PF contribution and denial of deduction for interest income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' PF contribution for late payment is justified, and whether the assessee is eligible for deduction of interest income under Section 80P.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 06.11.2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) r.w.s. 143(3B) of the Act on 09.04.2021. The registry has noted delay of 122 days in the appeal the condonation of which has been

sought by Ld. AR along with a prayer to remand back the matter before lower authorities on the ground that the assessee has remained unrepresented therein. The same has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 2. The first addition as made by Ld. AO in the assessment order is disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) for Rs.5,71,907/- for late payment of Employees’ contribution to PF. The second adjustment as made by Ld. AO is denial of deduction of interest income u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for Rs.205.11 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order for want of any representation from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. So far as the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is concerned, we find that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (448 ITR 518). Therefore, the action of Ld. AO, to that extent, stands confirmed. 4. The issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) stand restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration subject to direction to the assessee to plant 50 trees of Indian origin having a minimum height of 4 feet at appropriate place. The plantation activity shall be undertaken with a period of three months from the date of this order. The receipt & requisite proof thereof would be furnished by the assessee to Ld. CIT(A) who would proceed for fresh adjudication of this ground accordingly.

5.

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21st July, 2026

-Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 21-07-2026 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 →