M/S GOBIND INDUSTRIES,LUDHIANA vs. AACIT/DCIT,CIRCLE-VI, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 240/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 June 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had sufficient brought forward business losses (Rs. 100.35 Lacs) to set off against the increased business income due to the impugned adjustment. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the set-off of these brought forward losses to the extent of the adjustment and to revise the figures of losses to be carried forward in subsequent years.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order that confirmed a CPC adjustment of Rs. 13.31 Lacs for late payment of PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va), based on an intimation issued u/s 143(1). The CIT(A) had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. CIT* and also rejected the assessee's alternative claim for set-off of brought forward unabsorbed losses, stating that a fresh claim required a revised return.

What were the issues?

Whether the CPC's adjustment for late payment of PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) was valid, and whether the assessee was entitled to set off brought forward business losses against the income increased by such an adjustment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

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

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 16-01-2024 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 06-03-2020 wherein CPC made adjustment of late payment of PF / ESI for Rs.13.31 Lacs invoking the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same by following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. CIT (2022) 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC). The assessee made an alternative claim of set-off of brought forward unabsorbed losses against the assessed income which was also rejected by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that fresh claim could only be made by filing revised return of income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

From assessee’s computation of income for this year, it is clear that the assessee has brought forward business losses for Rs.100.35 Lacs out of which the assessee set-off the same to the extent of computed business income of Rs.27.18 Lacs. The assessee has carried forward the remaining business loss of Rs.73.17 Lacs. The impugned adjustment has resulted into increased business income for the assessee which could be set-off against available business loss which is quite sufficient to cover the impugned adjustment. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to allow further set-off of brought forward losses to the extent of impugned adjustment as made by CPC and revise the figures of losses which would be carried forward by the assessee in subsequent years. No other material ground has been urged in the appeal.

3.

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 09-06-2025. (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09-06-2025. 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

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 →