AYANA JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1661/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 April 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for late deposit of PF and ESI was debatable and settled by the Supreme Court. Given the assessment year, it could not be said the assessee intentionally misrepresented facts, thus the penalty was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against a penalty levied under section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed due to a disallowance of Rs. 2,52,971 for delayed deposit of PF and ESI contributions.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 270A(9) is leviable for disallowance of delayed deposit of PF and ESI contributions when the issue was debatable and settled by the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A(9),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Appellant: Adv. (Thru
Hearing: 23.03.2026Pronounced: 21.04.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1661/JPR/2025 Ayana Jewels IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1661/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18) Ayana Jewels, Vs. ITO F-23, SEZ II Sitapura Ind. Ward 7(1) Area Jaipur 302022 Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AATFA3375P Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Ankit Totuka, Adv. (Thru. V.C.) Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2026 O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16.09.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the levy of penalty u/s 270A(9) of the Act. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1661/JPR/2025 Ayana Jewels made a disallowance of Rs.2,52,971/- on account of the delayed deposit of contribution to PF and ESI, invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. He also imposed the impugned penalty in respect of such disallowance made by him.

3.

The issue relating to disallowance on account of late deposit of contribution to PF and ESI was a debatable issue, which has been finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 2022 (143) taxmann.com 178. However, the assessment year involved is Assessment Year 2017- 18; therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has intentionally claimed the said amount as a deduction by way of misrepresentation of facts or suppression of facts. Therefore, the impugned penalty is not sustainable and the same is ordered to be deleted.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 21.04.2026.

Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 21.04.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to:

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1661/JPR/2025 Ayana Jewels 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order,

Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 270A(9)

All 107 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A(9) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →