LOKENDRA KUMAR SINGH,SURAT vs. DCIT CC-2(1)(1), SURAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT “DB” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.775/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Lokendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of E-103, Rajhans View, Rajhans Income Tax, Campus, B/h. Rajhans Cinema, Surat Circle-2(1)(1), Hazira Road, Pal Surat-395009 Surat [PAN No.BASPS9587B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.04.2026 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai on 23.10.2023 for A.Y. 2018-19.

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of confirming action of the assessing officer, CPC in to issue notice u/s. 143(1)(a)(i) for proposed adjustment towards disallowance of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in not accepting a response with disagreement with the proposed addition and mentioning the reason for the disagreement with the proposed addition, within short space given to submit the response. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in assessing income of your

ITA No. 775/Srt/2024 Lokendra Kumar Singh vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 2– appellant, as Rs. 1,15,17,000/- as against the returned income of Rs.57,14,000/- by adding the amount of delayed payment of employee's contribution, but paid before due date u/s. 139(1) of ITA, towards PF/ESI amounting to Rs.58,02,994/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in wrongly interpreted the provision of Sec. 43B of ITA, being the non-obstacle clause and failed to appreciate the fact that Sec. 43B overrides the provision of Sec. 36(1) (va) of ITA. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in failed miserably to understand the meaning of Contribution according to the provisions of EPF scheme,1952 r.w.s Income tax Act and Rules. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in not allowed the deduction of employee's contribution of PF/ESI paid within the due date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) of ITA. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer, CPC in not taking into consideration plethora of judicial pronouncements including Hon’ble Apex court on same subject matter relied upon by your appellant. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 57,14,000/-. The return of income was processed under Section 143(1) on 09.01.2020 determining total income at Rs. 1,15,17,000/-. In the said intimation order under Section 143(1), the CPC Bengaluru made the disallowance of Rs. 58,02,994/- under Section36(1)(va) of the Act.