M/S RANA IRON & POWER LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the assessee's failure to furnish supporting details and evidence. The disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution was upheld as per settled law.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT on multiple occasions, and also before the CIT(A) after filing written submissions. The Revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' findings.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF due to delayed deposit is justified. Whether the assessee's failure to appear and provide evidence warrants dismissal of the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA & SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA
Per Anubhav Sharma, JM :
As the case was called for hearing, non-appeared for the assessee and the record shows on 16.03.2022 non-appeared and thereafter notices have been issued and none has appeared for the assessee on four opportunities. No more notices are justified. Ld. DR was heard who supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below.
It can be appreciated that before Ld. CIT(A) after filing of written submission, none has appeared for the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has considered the grounds of addition on the basis of material before him observing that the assessee had failed to furnish further details and evidences supporting the grounds. In regard to the disallowance on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution of PF u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act the law stands now settled in favour of the Revenue that on account of delay the expense cannot be allowed. Thus, giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and orders of Ld. Tax Authorities below, there appears to be no error in the findings of Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026