2021 (11) TMI 348 - AT - Income Tax

Delayed employee's contribution to provident fund - Whether same has been paid before filing of the return? - HELD THAT - This issue is squarely covered by the decision of M/s. Vijay Shree Limited 2011 (4) TMI 63 - ITAT KOLKATA which has been further followed in the case of Harendra Nath Biswas 2021 (7) TMI 942 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein as held since assessee had deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of delayed employee's contribution to provident fund
- Applicability of Explanation-5 to section 43B
- Interpretation of relevant case laws

Analysis:
1. Addition of delayed employee's contribution to provident fund:
The appellant contested the addition of ?1872684 towards delayed employee's contribution to provident fund, arguing that the amount was paid before filing the return. The counsel cited precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in a specific case, to support the appellant's position. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, noting that the assessment year in question was 2017-18, making the Explanation-5 inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 43B inapplicable. The Tribunal referred to a similar case to reinforce the decision in favor of the assessee.

2. Applicability of Explanation-5 to section 43B:
The Tribunal scrutinized the applicability of Explanation-5 to section 43B, emphasizing that it was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, effective from 01.04.2021. Since the assessment year under consideration was 2019-20, the Tribunal relied on the law laid down by the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court, which did not make Explanation-5 retrospective. By referencing the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a specific case, the Tribunal reinforced its stance against the application of Explanation-5 in the current scenario.

3. Interpretation of relevant case laws:
The Tribunal extensively analyzed and interpreted relevant case laws, including the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a specific case, to guide the judgment. By citing precedents and legal principles, the Tribunal justified its decision to set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal's reliance on binding decisions and legal interpretations played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal concerning the addition of delayed employee's contribution to the provident fund. The detailed analysis of case laws and the applicability of relevant legal provisions formed the basis for the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a fair and just outcome for the appellant.