2025 (4) TMI 1939

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The present appeal is listed before us pursuant to order dated 06/02/2025 passed under section 254(2) of the Act in MA No. 275/Mum./2024, whereby the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal recalled its earlier ex parte order dated 28/08/2023 passed under section 254(1) of the Act and restored the appeal to its original position for a fresh hearing. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "Ground No. 1: Disallowance of Rs. 7,65,951/- of employees contribution to PF u/s 36(1)(va). A typographical error. In law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the claim of Rs. 7,65,951/- arising on account of the typographical....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibed under the relevant Act. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, upheld the disallowance made by the AO/CPC by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v/s CIT, reported in [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC). Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ("learned AR") submitted that in the original Tax Audit Report filed by the assessee, there were some typographical errors in disclosing the due date of payment of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund and certain due dates were inadvertently shown one month earlier. The learned AR submitted that upon the same being noticed, the auditor of the assessee issued revised An....