What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision in favour of the department but also noted a coordinate bench's order restoring similar matters to the AO for factual verification. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeals concerned the proper determination of the due date for depositing employee contributions to EPF/ESIC, considering government notifications and agreement types. The assessee argued that the due date should align with salary disbursement dates.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the due date for EPF/ESIC contributions should be based on salary disbursement dates or other criteria, and whether the Assessing Officer had properly adjudicated this.

Lt.Col. Satish Kumar Oberoi… vs Addl/JCIT(A)-3 Bangaluru… | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Sharma

For Respondent: Shri Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 24.06.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 6175/DEL/2024

ITA No. 6210/Del/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6188/DEL/2024 (AY 2017-18) ITA No. 6175/DEL/2024 (AY 2018-19) ITA No. 6176/Del/2024 (AY 2019-20) ITA No. 6210/Del/2024 (AY 2020-21) ITA No. 6200/Del/2024 (AY 2021-22) And ITA No. 6206/DEL/2024 (AY 2022-23)

LT. COL. SATISH KUMAR OBEROI, vs. JCIT(A)-3, BANGALURU 344, MODEL TOWN, 80, FEET ROAD, BMTC PANIPAT, HARYANA BUILDING, (PAN: AAPPO6931P) KORAMANGALA, BENGALARU-560095 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. & Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. REVENUE BY : Shri Raghubir Singh, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 24.06.2026 Date of Order : 29.06.2026 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : 1. These 06 appeals are filed by the same assessee against the respective orders of the Ld. JCIT (Appeals)-3, Bangaluru, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] for the Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2022-23 respectively. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, hence, the appeals

were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience by dealing with ITA NO. 6176/Del/2024 (AY 2019-20). 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee reads as under:-

Ld. JCIT(A) has not adjudicated properly by appreciating in view and circumstances of the case where (a) Government outsourcing Notifications/orders, (b) type of agreement escrow and regular agreement, has to drive the actual fixing of due date to be aligned from date of wages or date of payment for outsourcing contractor/ manpower provider/ services provider. The JCIT(A) has not considered relevant notification while adjudicating and passing the said order. On this ground itself the order should be set aside.

Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the exactly identical matter in another assessee namely Sombir Singh Mann vs. ITO in ITA No. 6320/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21) vide order dated 15.1.2026, the Tribunal has considered the appeal of the above cited assessee and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restoring back the matter to the AO for factual verification of the subject payment of salary disbursement and deposit of EPF/ESIC. He further submitted that in other cases also, the Tribunal has referred to the judgement of Kanoi Paper & Industries ltd. vs. ACIT wherein, it is decided that the due date of employee contribution to EPF /ESIC to be considered with reference to disbursement of salary and matter restored to Assessing officer for verification of the facts and ordered accordingly. In view of above, he requested to follow the aforesaid ratio in the instant case. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions made by the ld. AR for the assessee and submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 143 taxmann.com 178 which has been decided in

favour of the department. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is admitted fact that the issue involved in the instant appeal is already settled in favour of the Department by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. But however, we find that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in another assessee’s case namely Sombir Singh Mann vs. ITO in ITA No. 6320/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21) vide order dated 15.1.2026, has restored the matter to the Assessing Officer by observing as under :- “8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the first plea of the assessee that the issue under consideration is beyond the scope of section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘The Act’). In our considered view, this issue is already settled in favour of the Department and accordingly, this plea of the assessee is rejected. 9. Further, we find that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 (supra) has restored the matter to the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-

“Next comes equally important aspect of assessee’s compliance to the foregoing statutory provision going by the actual date of salary disbursement, which has not been adjudicated by both the learned authorities. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant grievance to this limited extent to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate factual verification subject to a rider that the assessee shall itself plead and prove at his own risk and responsibility that it had complied with the foregoing provision, going by the actual date of monthly salary disbursement in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.” 10. Accordingly, we are inclined to remit the issue back to the file of the AO to consider the alternative plea of the assessee as per

law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes…” 6. In view of aforesaid findings, we are inclined to remit back the issue back to the file of AO to consider the plea of the assessee as per law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. As regards other remaining 05 appeals are concerned, our aforesaid decision taken for assessment year 2019-20 will apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also. Accordingly, the remaining 05 appeals for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 are also partly allowed for statistical purposes on the similar lines, as aforesaid. 8. In the result, all the 06 appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 29.06.2026 SR BHATANGAR Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

LT.COL. SATISH KUMAR OBEROI,PANIPAT vs. ADDL/JCIT(A)-3 BANGALURU, BANGALURU

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