9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1132 - AT - Income TaxDelayed employee's contribution to provident fund - assessee argued contribution been paid before filing of the return.paid before filing of the return - Scope of amendment - HELD THAT - We find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee as the assessment year involved is AY 2017-18 and the Explanation-5 inserted by Finance Act, 2021 to section 43B w.e.f. 01.04.2021 is not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. See HARENDRA NATH BISWAS VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-29 KOLKATA 2021 (7) TMI 942 - ITAT KOLKATA wherein held that we do not accept the Ld. CIT(A)'s stand denying the claim of assessee since assessee delayed the employees contribution of EPF ESI fund and as per the binding decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Vijayshree Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT of the Act since assessee had deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income. Therefore, the assessee succeeds and we allow the appeal of the assessee.
Issues:
1. Delayed contribution to provident fund 2. Applicability of Explanation-5 to section 43B 3. Judicial precedent regarding delayed deposit of employee contributions Delayed Contribution to Provident Fund: The appeal was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre regarding the addition of delayed employee's contribution to provident fund. The assessee argued that the amount was deposited before the due date of filing the return, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, noting that the assessment year in question was prior to the insertion of Explanation-5 to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021. This decision was supported by a previous judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Applicability of Explanation-5 to Section 43B: The Tribunal highlighted that the Explanation-5, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration, which was AY 2017-18. The Tribunal emphasized that since the law was not made retrospective, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court would apply. The Tribunal referenced a specific case where the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had considered the issue of delayed employee contributions and had ruled in favor of the assessee based on the retrospective nature of the law. Judicial Precedent Regarding Delayed Deposit of Employee Contributions: The Tribunal extensively discussed the judicial precedent set by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a previous case involving the deletion of an addition on account of employees' contribution to ESI and PF. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had held that certain amendments to the Income Tax Act were curative in nature and required retrospective application. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, emphasizing that no substantial question of law was involved. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim was valid as the employees' contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return, in line with the binding decision of the Hon'ble High Court. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities, allowed the appeal of the assessee, and ordered the deletion of the impugned addition. The decision was based on the retrospective application of relevant laws and the established judicial precedents supporting the assessee's position. ---
|
