9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 209 - AT - Income TaxDelayed payment of Employees Contribution to ESI Provident Fund - Addition u/s 36(1)(va) - assessee submitted that the Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI had been deposited with in the time limit prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, which is allowable as per the provisions of 43B - HELD THAT - In the present case it is not in dispute that the assessee deposited the amount in question before filing the return of income therefore, it was allowable deduction under section 43B of the Act. Similar issue has been decided in the case of M/s New Time Contractors and Builder (P) Ltd. 2019 (3) TMI 1627 - ITAT CHANDIGARH wherein held assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of the employer's and employees' contributions to the employees' State Insurance and provident fund as the contributions had been deposited prior to the filing of the return under section 139(1). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of late payment of EPF and ESI by Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Upholding of the Assessing Officer's action by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) despite timely payment before the due date of filing the return. 3. Failure to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of late payment of EPF and ESI The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum on account of delayed payment of Employees' Contribution to ESI & Provident Fund under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this disallowance, citing a judgment of the Gujarat High Court. However, the Assessee argued that the amount was deposited before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act, making it an allowable deduction under section 43B of the Act. Issue 2: Failure to follow High Court decision The Assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in a similar case, without providing valid reasons. The Assessee relied on various case laws to support the argument that the impugned amount was allowable as a deduction under section 43B of the Act since it was paid before filing the return. Detailed Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had indeed deposited the amount before filing the return of income, making it an allowable deduction under section 43B of the Act. Referring to a previous order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was deleted based on the principle laid down by the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal further cited the judgment of the High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that the deletion of the second proviso to section 43B was curative and should be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessee should benefit from the deduction of contributions towards provident funds and ESI if paid before furnishing the return, as per the provisions of section 43B. In the appeal for the subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning and findings from the earlier appeal, allowing the Assessee's appeal for the year in question. The Tribunal pronounced the order in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing the retrospective application of the relevant provisions and the Assessee's compliance with the payment requirements before filing the return. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeals for both assessment years, emphasizing the importance of timely payment of EPF and ESI contributions before filing the return to qualify for deductions under section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
|
