What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee suffered double disallowance, which is impermissible. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, setting aside the order dismissing the appeal for delay.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for a delay of 3 years. The CPC had made an adjustment for late payment of PF/ESI, which the assessee had already suo-moto disallowed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay when the assessee had already suo-moto disallowed the amount, leading to a double disallowance.

Pawan Kumar Nayyar, Himachal… vs ITO | s.143(1) | ITAT Chandigarh 2026

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 आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.825/CHANDI/2026 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Pawan Kumar Nayyar ITO, Ward Mohalla Bangotu, Chambu Aaykar Bhawan, Dalhousie बनाम/ Vs. Rangmahal, Chamba Himachal Pradesh – 176303 Himachal Pradesh – 176310 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAGPN-7154-G (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) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 14-07-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 20-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2020- 21 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 19.11.2025 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) making certain adjustments in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 3 years against which the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. The Ld. AR, at the outset, stated that CPC made disallowance of late payment of PF / ESI for Rs.2,65,358/- which was already suo-moto disallowed by the assessee in its

computation of income and therefore, the impugned adjustment is nothing but double disallowance. 2. It apparently emerges that the assessee has suffered double disallowance and therefore, the delay could have been condoned in the first appeal. Nevertheless, I set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits without raising the issue of delay with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. It is reiterated that double disallowance is impermissible. No other ground has been urged in the appeal. 3. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20th July, 2026. -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 20/07/2026 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

PAWAN KUMAR NAYYAR ,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO WARD DALHOUSIE , HIMACHAL PRADESH

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments