INNOVISION LIMITED,DELHI vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWALAssessment Year: 2020-21 Innovision Limited, 1/209, First Floor, Delhi Cantt. Sadar Bazar, New Delhi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi PAN:AAKCS4802P (Appellant)
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National
Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055268961(1), dated
21.08.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Assessee by None
Department by Sh. Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
10.12.2025
Date of pronouncement
24.12.2025
2 | P a g e
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
2. Delay of 504 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land
& Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
3. The assessee’s ground nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are hereby rejected as general in nature.
4. Next comes the first and foremost issue between the parties in the assessee’s 3rd substantive ground seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing/adding its ESI/PF claim on account of late payment thereof amounting to Rs.
2,29,01,826/- in assessment order dated 08.09.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
5. Suffice to say, learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion indicates that the assessee had deposited the impugned sum very well after the due date in the corresponding statute. And that the hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com
278(SC) has already settled the very issue in the Revenue’s favour
3 | P a g e and against the assessee. We thus find no merit in the assessee’s instant 3rd substantive ground which fails therefore.
6. The assessee’s 4th substantive ground pleads that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on the facts in refusing section 80JJAA deduction of Rs.3,26,71,804/- as per
CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. We make it clear that no such disallowance is forthcoming either in the conclusive para 11 of the assessment discussion nor in the lower appellate findings. Rejected accordingly.
7. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th December, 2025 (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 24th December, 2025. RK/-