Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals for Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24 against orders passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities disallowed the assessee's ESI/PF claims.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of ESI/PF contributions is no longer res integra, with settled law favouring the Revenue. The Tribunal also noted that such disallowances can be part of Section 143(1) processing.
Key Issues
Whether disallowance of ESI/PF contributions deposited after the due date is permissible under Section 143(1) processing.
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 ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2023-24 Commando Muscle Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, RZ-82B, Dichan Kalan Road, Laxmi Circle-13(1), Vihar, New Delhi-110043 New Delhi-110043 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAFCK4749J Assessee by: None Revenue by : Ms. Ambika Agarwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.10.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals in & 5309/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24, arise against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Ludhiana’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079056744(1) & 1079059268(1) both dated 30.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Cases 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(s); involving varying sums, in section 143(1) processing(s) as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
& 5309/Del/2025 Commando Muscle Power Pvt. Ltd.
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. She further quotes Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) that hon’ble jurisdictional high court has further held that such a disallowance could indeed form subject matter of processing u/s 143(1) of the Act. I find merit in the Revenue’s both the foregoing contentions to uphold the impugned disallowance in the assessee’s hands. Ordered accordingly.