INDOCARE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. WARD 12(1) , DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4750/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's ground that the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions could not be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on earlier judgments which held against the assessee on this issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose against the order of CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions for failure to deposit them by the due date. The assessee's appeal was proceeded ex parte as none appeared on their behalf.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of ESI/PF contributions for delayed deposit can be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 139(1),Section 143(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 22.09.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna’s order dated 04.06.2024 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065382004(1) in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

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

2.

The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly invoked section 36(1)(va) isallowance to make addition of Rs. 14,76,834/- on account of assessee’s failure in not having deposited the ESI/PFin the prescribed period on or before the “due” date in the

3.

It is in this factual background that the tribunal hereby rejects assessee’s above sole substantive ground that the impugned disallowance of ESI/PF contribution could not have been made in processing u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act in light of Woodland (Aero Club ) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) & Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (Del.) that the instant issue is no mere res-integra since decided against the assessee and in department’s favour. This tribunal, therefore, sees no merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground which is hereby rejected in very terms.

5.

This asessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 22.09.2025.

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 →