AMIT THAPAR,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 223/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 July 2026AY 2019-202 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the payments made and restrict the disallowance only to amounts paid after the due dates, as some payments might have been made within the due dates but wrongly reported.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of late payment of PF/ESI for AY 2019-20. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance based on the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of PF/ESI payments made within due dates is justified. The correctness of the quantum of disallowance due to potential reporting errors by the Tax Auditor.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.223/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Amit Thapar DCIT – 1(1) House No. 3509, Sector – 38D बनाम/ Vs. CR Building, Sector – 17 Chandigarh – 160036 Chandigarh �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACZPT-4621-R (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 23-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 06-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Madurai [CIT(A)] dated 23.01.2024confirming disallowance of late payment of PF / ESI u/s 36(1)(va) for Rs.162.27 Lacs as made by CPC u/s 143(1). 2. It could be seen that Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CheckmateServices Pvt. Ltd. (448

ITR 518) to confirm the impugned adjustment. This position could not be controverted by Ld. AR. However, the short prayer before us is that certain payments have been made within due dates and higher disallowance has been made due to wrong reporting by Tax Auditor. The details thereof have been placed on Page Nos.378 to 382 of the paper-book. The Ld. Sr. DR fairly stated that the correct quantum of disallowance could be considered by Ld. AO. Accordingly, we direct Ld. AO to verify the same and restrict the disallowance to that extent only wherein the payment has been made beyond due dates as prescribed under relevant acts. The assessee is directed to provide the requisite information. 3. The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06th July, 2026

(LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 06-07-2026 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 →