9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders of the CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi, as per following details: Sl.No. Appeal No. Name of Case CIT(Appeal/s ) Order dt. 1. ITA No. 219/JP/2021 M/s Plastomet CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 08/09/2021 2. ITA No. 220/JP/2021 M/s Plastomet CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 08/09/2021 2. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 219/JP/2021 read as under:- 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the adjustments carried out U/s 143(1) are strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustments as envisaged U/s 143(1)(a)(iv) and confirming disallowance of ₹ 4,89,610/-. The said action is illegal and unjustified and adjustment made to the income of assesee U/s 143(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 27/09/2021 passed by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in ITA No. 59/Jodh/2021 for the assessment years 2015-16 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company Vs. DCIT and in the case of Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru, in ITA No. 60/Jodh/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20. 7. In her rival submissions, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the aforesaid referred to cases, wherein one of us is author of the order dated 27/09/2021. In the said order it has been held vide paras 7 to 11 in ITA No. 59/Jodh/2021 for the assessment years 2015-16 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company Vs. DCIT and in the case of Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru, in ITA No. 60/Jodh/202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988. Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees Contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. In the light of the aforesaid discussion we do not accept the Ld. CIT(A) s stand denying the claim of assessee since assessee delayed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee as part of its return of income, it is noted that the assessee has deposited the employees s contribution towards ESI and PF well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) and the last of such deposits were made on 16.04.2019 whereas due date of filing the return for the impugned assessment year 2019-20 was 31.10.2019 and the return of income was also filed on the said date. Admittedly and undisputedly, the employees s contribution to ESI and PF which have been collected by the assessee from its employees have thus been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 14. The issue is no more res integra in light of series of decisions rendered by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court starting from CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur (supra) and subsequent decisions. 15. In this regard, we may refer to the initial decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur wherein the Hon ble High Court after extensively examining the matter and considering the various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and various other High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sees and not under the due date of filing of return. 22. We have already observed that till this provision was brought in as the due amounts on one pretext or the other were not being deposited by the assessees though substantial benefits had been obtained by them in the shape of the amount having been claimed as a deduction but the said amounts were not deposited. It is pertinent to note that the respective Act such as PF etc. also provides that the amounts can be paid later on subject to payment of interest and other consequences and to get benefit under the Income Tax Act, an assessee ought to have actually deposited the entire amount as also to adduce evidence regarding such deposit on or before the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act. 23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. 16. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
