Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 arose against an order disallowing their ESI/PF claim of Rs.3,44,25,500/-. The disallowance was made under section 143(1) processing and upheld in lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowing contributions not deposited within the due date for filing the return was settled law. They found merit in the Revenue's contentions that such disallowance can be processed under section 143(1) of the Act.
Key Issues
Whether disallowance of ESI/PF contributions not deposited within the due date for filing the return is a valid subject for processing u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
143(1), 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Trio Security and Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, I-36, Lajpat Nagar-I, Ward-25(3), New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACT5352R Assessee by : None (Adjournment Application Rejected) Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Ranchi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075353788(1) dated 31.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s ESI/PF claim of Rs.3,44,25,500/- in section 143(1) processing dated 24.12.2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, the learned departmental representative vehemently argues in light of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) that the issues is no more res integra since their lordships have settled the law in department’s favour and against the assessee that the above contributions ought to be deposited within the due date in the statute then that of filing section 139(1) return. He further quotes Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) that hon’ble jurisdictional high court has also held that such a disallowance could indeed form subject matter of processing u/s 143(1) of the Act. We find merit in the Revenue’s both the foregoing contentions to uphold the impugned disallowance in the assessee’s hands in very terms. Ordered accordingly.