CHANDRANCHAL ENTERPRISE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 28(1) NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7232/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

Regarding the ESI/PF disallowance, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering the assessee's EPFO registration and deposit details. For the addition due to alleged waiver of liability, the Tribunal directed its deletion, finding no evidence of waiver, remission, or cessation in the assessee's books. The appeal was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 challenging an order passed under Section 143(3). The appeal concerned two main issues: an ESI/PF disallowance of Rs. 3,34,164/- for belated deposits and an addition of Rs. 3,15,285/- related to an alleged waiver of liability, both upheld by lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the ESI/PF disallowance for belated deposits was correct, and whether the addition for alleged waiver of liability was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Chandranchal Enterprise, Vs ACIT, R-12, Opp. Nehru Place, Nehru Circle-28(1), Enclave, New Delhi-110019 Civic Centre, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AALFC2201N Assessee by: Sh. Ravi Bhatia, CA Revenue by : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080470464(1) dated 09.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

The first and foremost issue between the parties herein as per their respective pleadings is found to be that of correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action invoking ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.3,34,164/- on account of belated deposits of the same in the prescribed account at the assessee’s behest, made in the assessment order dated 20.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

Learned counsel has filed the assessee’s paper book inter alia indicating the EPFO’s registration in it’s case on 30.03.2017 along with the ESI code followed by the deposit of ESI/PF on 18th April and 14th May; as the case may be. That being the case, this tribunal is of the considered view that the learned Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the instant issue afresh in light of all these facts so as to ensure the assessee’s necessary compliance once again. This assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground is accordingly restored back to the Assessing Officer in very term.

5.

Next comes the latter addition of Rs.3,15,285/- invoked by the learned Assessing Officer as upheld in the lower appellate discussion which pertains to the alleged waiver of liability involving three parties in question. The Revenue could hardly dispute that there is no waiver or remission or cessation thereof indicated in assessee’s books which could attracts any addition in it’s hands. The same is directed to be deleted therefore.

6.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →