9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 517 - AT - Income TaxDelayed employees contribution towards EPF/ESI deposits - Payment before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) - HELD THAT - As relying on RAJA RAM VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 3 AND SANCHI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED 2021 (11) TMI 370 - ITAT CHANDIGARH the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of deposits of employees contribution of ESI PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Retrospective application of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Late Payments towards EPF and ESI: The primary grievance of the assessees was the disallowance of contributions towards Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) made after the due date but before the due date for filing the Income Tax return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees argued that such payments should be allowed as deductions. The Tribunal considered precedents from various benches of the ITAT and High Courts. Notably, the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar and Sanchi Management Services Private Limited Vs. ITO, Chandigarh had adjudicated similar issues, holding that contributions made before the due date of filing the return should be allowed as deductions. The Tribunal also referenced the decisions of the ITAT Jodhpur Bench, which had similarly ruled in favor of allowing such deductions. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative amendments to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, which were introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, apply prospectively from 1.4.2021 and not retrospectively. 2. Retrospective Application of Legislative Amendments: The assessees contended that the explanations added to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, should not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal examined this contention in light of various judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal noted that several High Courts, including the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vijayshree Ltd., had held that amendments to section 43B, introduced to curb non-compliance with statutory payment deadlines, were curative and intended to apply retrospectively. However, the Tribunal found that the specific explanations to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were not explicitly stated to have retrospective application. The Tribunal also referenced the decision of the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Harendra Nath Biswas vs DCIT, which ruled that the explanations introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were prospective and therefore not applicable to assessment years prior to AY 2021-22. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) on account of late deposits of employees' contributions to EPF and ESI, which were made before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1), were not justified. The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, holding that such contributions should be allowed as deductions. The Tribunal's order underscores that the legislative amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, do not have retrospective application and that contributions made before the due date of filing the return should be allowed as deductions, following the binding decisions of various High Courts and ITAT benches.
|
