M.K.S.ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), JABALPUR

ITA 154/JAB/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 February 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the rectification order was passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order, with directions to provide proper opportunity and consider the Supreme Court's judgment.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a rectification order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which added Rs. 98,520 to its income under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed payment of employees' provident fund contributions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT-1.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition for delayed ECPF payment can be made via a rectification order under Section 154, and whether the assessee was given reasonable opportunity before the rectification order was passed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CA

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA: A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.154/JAB/2023 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 18.10.2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057182983(1) of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B)

In this case, the dispute pertains to rectification order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) whereby an addition of Rs. 98,520/- to the total income was made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforesaid addition pertains to the delay in payment of employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund (ECPF

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →