The Centralised Processing Centre disallowed employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and Employees’ State Insurance deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes while processing the return under section 143(1). The Tribunal held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd  v.CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). applies equally to proceedings under section 143(1) as well as scrutiny assessments. Since the delay was evident from the tax audit report itself, the adjustment under section 143(1) was valid. The assessee contended that the intimation under section 143(1) was time-barred because it was digitally signed and communicated by e-mail on 1 April 2021. The Tribunal held that the intimation itself was generated on 31 March 2021 and the subsequent digital signature and communication through e-mail did not alter the date of processing. Further, the time-limit for processing returns had been extended by the CBDT. Accordingly, the intimation was held to be within limitation.  The adjustment relating to delayed deposit of employees’ contribution was made on the basis of defaults reported by the tax auditor. The Tribunal held that where the incorrect claim is apparent from the information furnished in the return and tax audit report, adjustment under section 143(1)(a) is permissible. The assessee challenged the adjustment on the ground that no prior intimation had been issued. The Tribunal found that the Centralised Processing Centre had communicated the proposed adjustment through the assessee’s registered e-mail address before processing the return. The statutory requirement of prior intimation under section 143(1)(a) was therefore duly complied with.(AY. 2019-20).