SH. ARJUN SINGH,ROORKEE vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 102/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 March 2025AY 2018-19Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rectification order was not sustainable. It found no apparent mistake on record to justify the disallowance of EPF and ESI claims on the grounds of delayed deposit, referencing High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the disallowance of EPF and ESI claims made through a rectification order under Section 154. The disallowance was based on the failure to deposit these amounts by the statutory due date.

What were the issues?

Whether a rectification order under Section 154 is valid for disallowing employee contributions to EPF/ESI due to delayed deposit, especially when not suffering from an apparent mistake.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

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, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Hearing: 19.03.2025Pronounced: 28.03.2025

Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sh. Arjun Singh, Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Tyagi Market Shop No. 1, 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Manglaur, Roorkee, U.K.-247656 Dehradun, U.K.-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CJHPS6773G Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. Amarpal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.03.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & orderNo. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064354061(1) dated 25.04.2024, in proceedings u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have taken recourse to section 154 rectification for the purpose of disallowing the assessee’s EPF and ESI claims of Rs.38,15,396/- and Rs.9,21,486; respectively, on the ground that he had failed to deposit the Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. same as per the “due” date in the corresponding statute. The Revenue’s case in light thereof quotes hon’ble apex court recent landmark decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT-I (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC)

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement arguments. We find no reason to sustain the impugned rectification for the purpose of disallowing the assessee’s above ESI/PF claim(s) on the ground that it had failed to deposit the same within the prescribed “due” date under the prescribed statute. We further quote hon’ble Bombay high court’s recent landmark decision in Civil Writ petition no. 17175/2024 dated 03.12.2024 in M/s Infantry Security and facilities Vs. ITO that any such course of action in light of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT-I (supra) is not sustainable in law since not suffering from an apparent mistake on record. We accordingly accept the assessee’s sole substantive ground in very terms.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →