HIMANGINI SINGH,NEW DELHI V. CIT APPEAL, RAIPUR

ITA 13/RPR/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Himangini Singh, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur, which upheld a disallowance of Rs.29,15,220 under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This disallowance was initially made by the Centralized Processing Center - Income Tax Return (CPC-ITR) due to late payment of EPF/ESI contributions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee did not comply with the procedural requirements. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was mechanical and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847599 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Raipur
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी पाथŊ सारथी चौधरी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अवधेश क ुमार िमŵ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 13/RPR/2026 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Himangini Singh, A7 Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-65 Vs Assessing Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001 PAN: AFTPC4142H (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by : None. राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 24/03/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM: This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2022-23 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.11.2025 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘CIT(A)’], Raipur-3 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The assessee has challenged the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) with respect to the disallowance of Rs.29,15,220/- made under section 36(1)(va) in the Act while possessing his Income tax Return (ITR) under section 143(1) of the Act Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.13/RPR/2026 Himangini Singh vs. AO 2 by the CPC-ITR, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) by passing a non-speaking and mechanical order and in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) on 30.12.2022 declaring income of Rs.47,35,16,370/-. Thereafter, the ITR was processed by the CPC-ITR by disallowing the sum of Rs.29,15,220/- under section 39(1)(va) of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has not paid the EPF/ESI within the time period provided in the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who decided the appeal ex-patre due to non-compliance of the assessee as under: “4.1 ………………………… …………………………. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 28.08.2025, 30.10.2025 & 19.11.2025. the assessee has not furnished her reply. During the course of appeal proceedings, I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and also perused the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act. I find that the assessee has filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 30.12.2022 declaring total income of Rs.15,15,16,210/- and the CPC-ITR, has processed the return on 16.03.2023 after disallowance of Rs.38,17,729/- on account of EPF/ESI contribution of the Act in different section u/s 36(1)(va). During the course of appeal proceedings, assessee has claimed that it has already added disallowable expenses of Rs.33,54,843/- in her income for the year under consideration but the assessee has not submitted her income computation and audit report in support of her claim. On perusal of the intimation order dt. 16.03.2023, found that the assessee has already added a significant to mention here that it is undisputed that the Rs.33,54,843/- was paid by the assessee after due dates therefore, It will be disallowable expenses. However, on perusal of the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, it is found that during computation of income the disallowance of Rs.38,17,729/- has been taken in different section 36(a)(va). However, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.13/RPR/2026 Himangini Singh vs. AO 3 assessee has not submitted any evidence like audit report, income computation etc. to substantiate her claim. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case, these grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.” 4. Before us, the assessee was not represented by anyone. Therefore, we heard Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR at length. The Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of Authorities below. 5. We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and have perused the material available on the record. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in mentioning the facts of the case of Kamaljeet Singh Ahuluwalia in this case. This clearly speaks the mechanical nature of the impugned order. We therefore, direct the Ld. CIT(A) to rectify the mistake crept in the impugned order in this regard. 6. It is evident from the material available on record that the assessee has claimed that he had already made suo moto disallowance of Rs.1,60,173/- while filing his ITR and again, the same has been disallowed by the CPC-ITR as this sum is embedded in the disallowance of Rs.29,15,220/- made by the CPC-ITR. Further, the assessee has mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the remaining disallowance is due to some clerical error/mistake crept in the audit report. It has been further claimed that the remaining disallowance should have not been done as the same was deposited within the statutory time period provided in the Act. Both claims of the assessee need further verification by the Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee on this issue. After thoughtful consideration of the facts of the case and the material available on record; we, without offering any comment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.13/RPR/2026 Himangini Singh vs. AO 4 on the merit of the issues, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh/denovo on merit after hearing the assessee. Needless to say that the appellant assessee has to cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings in this case. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/03/2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 24/03/2026 HKS, PS आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //True copy// (Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "