##PAGE1##

आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘ए’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

(cid:21)ी मनु कुमार (cid:10)गtiर, (cid:14)या(cid:26)यक सद(cid:29)य एवं (cid:21)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:29)य के सम#

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.106/CHNY/2026 ((cid:26)नधा$रण वष $ / Assessment Year:2020-21)

VCO Consultants and Services The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, vs. Corporate Ward 3(3),

New No.13 Old No 6, Chennai.

1^st Street, Sourashtra Nagar, Choolaimedu

Chennai – 600 094.

[PAN:AABCV-6797-M]

(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) (’(यथ&/Respondent)

अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate &

Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ’(यथ& क) ओर से/Respondent by : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT

सुनवाई क) तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 17.03.2026 घोषणा क) तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM:

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dated 23.12.2025 passed by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation order dated 18.12.2021 passed

:-2-:

ITA No. 106/Chny/2026

u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21.

2. The sole ground raised by the assessee is that the CPC, Bengaluru has disallowed a sum of Rs.32,46,412/- being the belated remittance of the employee’s contribution to PF & ESI fund beyond the stipulated due dates prescribed under the respective statutes by invoking the provisions in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and consequently erred in adding back such sum in the computation of total income without assigning proper reasons and justification that the assessee has remitted its contribution of employees after the due date

prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2020-21.

3. Brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is a Company and filed its return of income on 15.02.2021, admitting a total income of Rs.NIL, by declaring current year loss of Rs.8,33,200/- after claiming deduction u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act as remittance of employee’s contribution to PF & ESI to the tune of Rs.32,46,412/-. Thereafter, an intimation order dated 18.12.2021 was passed by the Central Processing Centre (hereafter referred to as “CPC”) wherein the sum claimed for deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act was disallowed on the ground that the contribution was remitted after the due date as specified u/s.139(1) of the Act and a demand of Rs.7,01,740/- was raised

against the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 06.12.2025.

5. At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine, due to delay in filing an appeal by 1419 days.

:-3-:

ITA No. 106/Chny/2026

Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

6. The ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing an appeal due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and the intimation notice under consideration was passed during the COVID-19 pandemic and the accounts department of the assessee were restricted access to the office during COVID-19 Pandemic, resulting in not noticing the fact of passing of the intimation order and the assessee became aware only after receipt of recovery notice dated 08.08.2025 from the JAO/ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee

before the ld.CIT(A) to complete the appeal proceedings effectively.

7. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the appeal was to be filed before the ld.CIT(A) b