AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2024-25, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/ JCIT (A), [in short, the “Ld. CIT(A)”], Panaji’s order dated 13.03.2026 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1087332088(1) involving proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Delay of 2 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It is evident during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings invoking section 36(1)(va) PF & ESI addition / disallowance amounting to Rs. 36,18,720/-forming sole subject matter of the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.
That being the case, the assessee’s sole substantive argument before the tribunal is that the impugned ESI/PF disallowance could not have been made in the processing u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act even if the same is squarely covered in the department’s favour in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) going by Raj Kumar Bothra Vs. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 249 (Chhattisgarh). It could hardly dispute that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent landmark decision in Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) has settled the very issue thereby holding that such a disallowance could indeed be made in section 143(1)(a) processing as well. I, thus conclude that both the learned lower authorities’ impugned action disallowing the assessee’s ESI/PF claim for the sole reason that the same was deposited beyond the date in the corresponding statute; hardly deserves any interference. Upheld accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.