M/s Support Services Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-16(1), Delhi

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos. 1 454 to 1456/Del/2026 for assessment years 2019-20 to 2021-22 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl. JCIT(A)-1 (for short, ‘CIT (A)’), Kolkata’s as many orders dated 15.12.2026 passed in DINs & or der Nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083687971(1), ITBA/APL /S/250 /2025 -26/1083688189(1) & ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083688468(1);respectively,involving proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; here inafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee/appellant raises its identical substantive ground in all the three instant cases that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking section 36(1)(v)(a) PF/ESI contribution disallowance(s) involving varying sums, assessment year wise, respectively forming the sole subject matter for the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.

That being the case, Mr. Kapoor’s first and foremost argument is that the aforesaid issue of PF/ESI disallowance involving the employees’ contribution is very much debatable one as per hon’ble apex court’s recent interim order in Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2026) 187 taxmann.com 49(SC) admitted on 27.01.2026; reading as under:

The assessee’s second substantive argument raise d herein is that even if it is he ld that such a disallowance could indeed by made on account of the assessee’s failure in no t ensuring compliance to the provisions of the correspo nding statute, sectio n 143(1) “processing” in all the three instant cases is also not sustainable in law. And that his third substantive argument is that is in light of Co mmissioner of Income T ax v. Punjab Financial Corporation Ltd. (200 7) 295 ITR 510 (P&H) & Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. High Land Pro duce Co. Ltd. [1976] 102 ITR 8 03 (Ker) that such a claim could indee d be held allowable u/s 37 of the Act as well.

The Revenue on the other hand places strong re liance on both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking the impugned sectio n 36(v)(a) PF/ESI disallowance(s) in the assessee’s hands.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehe ment co ntentions. We find no reaso n to interfere with the learned low er authorities’ respective findings. We make it clear first o f all that hon’ble apex court’s larger bench decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) has indeed settled the law against the assessee and in the department’s favour that section 36(1)(v)(a) disallowance gets attracted in an instance where the former does not comply with the provisions of the corresponding statute. Their lordships further hold that relevant “due date” is not of filing section 139(1) return as well’. The same has admittedly not been considered in the admission order of Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. case. We thus place our heavy reliance on the lordships “larger” bench decision to adjudicate the issue in the department’s favour in very terms.

So far as the assessee’s se cond argument that the impugne d disallowance could not have been made in section 143(1 ) processing herein, we find that hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Wood land (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. Vs . ACIT (202 5) 178 ta xmann.co m 207 (Del. ) has r ejected the very stand. We thus decline the assessee’s instant second argument as well.

Lastly comes the asse ssee’s third ar gume nt that such a claim co uld indeed be allowable u/s 37 of the Act as well(supra). We, hereby conclude that the third issue also gets settled in the lordships decision in Woodland (Aero Club) (P .) Ltd. as well as in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278(SC) upholding sectio n 36(1) disallowance w hich is hereby decide d in the department’s favo ur in very te rms.

No other ground or argument has been raised before us.

These assessee’ s three appeals IT A Nos. 1454 to 1456/Del/2026 are dismissed. A copy of this co mmon order be placed in the respective case files.