Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (10) TMI 388 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Additions in relation to belated remittance to PF and ESI of Rs.56,74,806.
2. Additions in relation to section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, amounting to Rs.3,48,000.

Detailed Analysis:

Additions in relation to belated remittance to PF and ESI of Rs.56,74,806:

The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2019-2020, declaring a total income of Rs.12,53,83,360. The Assessing Officer, through intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, determined the total income at Rs.13,14,06,170, disallowing Rs.56,74,806 for late remittance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI.

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), arguing that the contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act, thus qualifying for deduction under section 43B. The CIT(A) differentiated between employer's and employees' contributions, allowing deductions only for the former if paid before the due date. The CIT(A) also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., asserting that amendments to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are retrospective.

The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal, relying on the ITAT's decision in M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DCIT, which followed the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT. The Tribunal, referencing the Essae Teraoka case, held that employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deductible if paid before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1). The Tribunal also ruled that the 2021 amendments to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are not retrospective, citing several Tribunal orders and the Supreme Court's decision in M.M. Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT.

The Tribunal concluded that the amendments to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B apply prospectively from the assessment year 2021-2022. Therefore, for the assessment year 2019-2020, the assessee is entitled to deductions for employees' contributions paid before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to grant the deduction accordingly.

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs.3,48,000:

For the assessment year 2019-2020, the A.O. disallowed Rs.3,48,000 under section 40(a)(ia) because the assessee did not deduct tax at source on certain payments. The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that the payee had included the income in their return and provided a certificate to this effect. However, the CIT(A) rejected this argument, noting non-compliance with Rule 31ACB of the I.T. Rules, 1962.

The Tribunal noted that if the payee has paid the taxes, the assessee cannot be treated as an "assessee in default" under section 201, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT. The proviso to section 40(a)(ia) extends this principle, allowing deductions if the payee has included the income in their return. The Tribunal found that the compliance with Rule 31ACB is directory and can be fulfilled later.

The Tribunal remanded the issue to the A.O., directing them to verify if the payee included the income in their return. The assessee is to provide necessary details to prove this. The Tribunal ordered the A.O. to extend the benefit of section 201's proviso to section 40(a)(ia) if the assessee's claim is substantiated.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the A.O. to grant deductions for employees' contributions to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return and to verify the payee's tax compliance for the disallowed amount under section 40(a)(ia).

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates