SUBODH KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC BANGALURU, BANGALORE

MA 160/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Subodh Kumar Agarwal, who filed a miscellaneous application to recall an ex-parte order of the Tribunal concerning an addition/disallowance of Rs.46,06,795 towards delayed deposit of PF & ESIC contributions for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The initial return filed by the assessee was processed by the CPC, leading to the said addition. The first appellate authority and subsequently the Tribunal upheld this addition, referencing decisions from the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Madras High Court. The assessee, citing sufficient cause for non-compliance during the earlier proceedings, sought a recall of the Tribunal's order, which was granted.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831157 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd., Creative Textile Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM MA No. 160/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Arising out of ITA No.754/Mum/2024) Shri Subodh Kumar Agarwal, 204, 2nd Floor, Shokeen Plaza, Plot No-3, Pocket 7, Dwarka, Sector-12, New Delhi – 110 075 Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bangalore PAN No.AABPA7184J (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Manish Khurana (Virtually Present) Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR) (Virtually Present) Date of Hearing : 31.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee/applicant for recalling the ex-parte order of the Tribunal dated 25.10.2024 in ITA No.754/M/2024 relevant to Assessment Year (“AY” for short) 2018-19. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income dated 01.10.2018 where the CPC processed the said return u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and vide intimation dated 15.12.2019 made an addition/disallowance of Rs.46,06,795/- towards delayed deposit of PF & ESIC pertaining to employees’ Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 160/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.754/Mum/2024) Shri Subodh Kumar Aggarwal 2 contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The first appellate authority upheld the disallowance by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC). Further, aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide ex-parte order dated 25.10.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and further had also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. 2064 ITR 620 (Mad.) along with the decision of Tribunal in Creative Textile Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.409/M/2022. 3. The assessee/applicant has filed the present miscellaneous application to recall the ex-parte order under rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (“the Rules” for short). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee/applicant had been non-compliant during the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal for which the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR” for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee had sufficient cause for his non- appearance during the hearing before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR also brought our attention to the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Writ Petition WP(C) No.1088 of 2025 wherein Hon’ble High Court had granted liberty to the assessee/applicant to file an application for recall of the Tribunal’s order under the relevant provisions. The Ld. AR prayed that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case on the merits Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 160/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.754/Mum/2024) Shri Subodh Kumar Aggarwal 3 before the Tribunal in view of the principles of natural justice. Though the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR” for short) objected to the same stating that on the merits the issue stands covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), upon perusal of the rival contentions, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present his case before the Tribunal with sufficient documentary evidences to substantiate that there was no delay in depositing the employees’ contribution to PF & ESIC. We are also conscious of the fact that the issue in hand stands covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), nevertheless by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation, we hereby recall the ex-parte order of the Tribunal dated 25.11.2024 with a direction that the assessee shall cooperate in the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal without any undue delay from his side. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee/applicant is allowed on the above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22.01.2026 * Kishore, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 160/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.754/Mum/2024) Shri Subodh Kumar Aggarwal 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "