TRIO SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

ITA 2664/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779027 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 2664/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Trio Security and Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. I-36, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(3), New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACT5352R Assessee by : None (Adjournment Application Rejected) Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Ranchi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075353788(1) dated 31.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s ESI/PF claim of Rs.3,44,25,500/- in section 143(1) processing dated 24.12.2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2664/Del/2025 Trio Security and Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. 2 4. That being the case, the learned departmental representative vehemently argues in light of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) that the issues is no more res integra since their lordships have settled the law in department’s favour and against the assessee that the above contributions ought to be deposited within the due date in the statute then that of filing section 139(1) return. He further quotes Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2025) 178 taxmann.com 207 (Del.) that hon’ble jurisdictional high court has also held that such a disallowance could indeed form subject matter of processing u/s 143(1) of the Act. We find merit in the Revenue’s both the foregoing contentions to uphold the impugned disallowance in the assessee’s hands in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 15/10/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "