TS5 SECURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1871/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 July 2024AY 2019-2020Bench: MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and the Ld. DR's arguments. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the assessee granted liberty to refile the appeal before the appropriate bench.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was against the disallowance of Employee Contribution to Provident Fund and ESI. The CIT(A) had confirmed this disallowance. The assessee later sought to withdraw the appeal due to a defect in filing.

What were the issues?

Defect in filing the appeal and incorrect mention of the respondent, leading to the prayer for withdrawal with liberty to refile.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Manpreet Singh, CA, Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.07.2024

O R D E R

Per Padmavathy S, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 16.02.2024 for the AY 2019-20. The assessee contending the disallowance of Employee Contribution to Provident Fund through various grounds of appeal.

2. The assessee is a private limited company and filed the return of income for AY 2019-20 on 15.10.2019 declaring a total income of Rs. 8,69,860/-. The Central Processing Centre processed the return filed by the assessee under section 143(1) wherein the contribution made by the assessee to Employee Provident Fund and ESI were disallowed. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the said disallowance.

3. The assessee vide letter dated 20.06.2024 had submitted that there was defect in filing the appeal wherein the respondent has been incorrectly mentioned as NFAC, Mumbai instead of ITO, Delhi. The assessee had further submitted that the jurisdiction of the assessee falls under the ITO Circle-25(1), Delhi and therefore, the appeal before the Tribunal should lie before Delhi Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal with a liberty to re-file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi.

4.

We have considered the submission of the assessee and heard the Ld. DR. Taking into consideration the letter filed by the assessee, we are dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee has the liberty to re-file the appeal before the appropriate bench of the Tribunal.

5.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →