2026 (9) TMI 1696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assessment Year 2018-19, the appellant filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,84,12,160/- after fully and truly disclosing all particulars of income, including employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI) in its books of account as well as in the Tax Audit Report. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 16,01,764 under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) on account of alleged belated deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI 4. The said contributions, though deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare stat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of hospitality and is regularly assessed to income tax. 2. For Assessment Year 2018-19, the appellant filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,84,12,160/- after fully and truly disclosing all particulars of income, including employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI) in its books of account as well as in the Tax Audit Report. 3. The ITR has been proceed U/s 143(1)(a) in which the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) has disallowed Rs. 16,01,764/- U/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) on account of late deposition of employees' contribution to PF/ESI after the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the penalty order. Detailed written submissions were filed explaining that the issue was purely a legal and debatable issue, that all facts were duly disclosed, and that the provisions of section 270A(9) were not attracted. 9. The learned CIT(A), however, vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084785713(1) order dated 14.01.2026 passed under section 250 of the Act, dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty, primarily relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appellant had misreported income under section 270A(9). 10. The appellant respectfully submits that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. MTNL Ltd. 2011- ITRV-HC-DEL-231 3. CIT v. H. Abdul Bakshi & Bios. (1986) 160 ITR 94 (AP)(FB) 4. Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 652 (P&H;) (FB) 5. CIT v. Indian Metals and Ferro alloys Ltd, 6. Commissioner of Income Tax V.Sood Harvestor [2008] 304 ITR 279(P&H) 7. Poysha Goyal vs. ACIT [2015-ITRV-ITATDEL-012] ITA No. 1721/Del/2013 8. CIT vs. Jain Export Private Ltd. ITA No.235/2013 9. Harish Narinder Salve Vs. ACIT Circle 37(1) 10. CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. - 322 ITR 158 (SC) 11. Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar Vs ITO, Panvel 2.5 12. Mitsu Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015-ITRV-HC-GUJ- 015]....