KAUSHAL KUMAR,RANIGANJ vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, ASANSOL

ITA 2618/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 February 2026AY 2019-2020Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO to examine the challans and dates of payment, considering the assessee's contention that no show cause notice was issued by the CPC.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21 were filed beyond the limitation period. The appeals concerned the disallowance of employee's ESIC/EPF contributions deposited after the due dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of belatedly deposited employee's ESIC/EPF contributions is valid, and whether the CPC's intimation order under Section 143(1) was procedurally correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER BENCH: These appeals filed by the Assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2019-20 & 2020- 21 dated 09.03.2023. Since the issues are common, both the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

1.

1 The Registry has informed that both the appeals are barred by limitation by 866 days. However, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay for 851 days explaining the reasons as under: “That the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →