Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 102/DDN/2024 : 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”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
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
2 ITA No. 111/DDN/2024 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)
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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28/03/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*