9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this section provides that due date means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee s contribution to the employee s account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule, order or notification issued there under or under any standing order, award, contract or service or otherwise. We further find that the alleged disallowance was made as there was a delay in deposit beyond the due date provided under relevant Act which deals with PF/ESIC. But undisputedly the amount has been deposited with the relevant fund before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). DR has submitted that for the instant issue is debatable and there are various judgments against the assessee also. We, however, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstance of the case, the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi erred in sustaining disallowance of employee s contribution to PF and ESI of ₹ 1,14,038/- and ₹ 12,615/- respectively paid late by the appellant which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective. 3. The appellant prays for relief. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal as and when the necessity or occasion arises. The Assessee namely Ashok Somani has raised following grounds of appeal in ITANo. 131/Ind/2021: Grounds of Income-Tax appeal before the Hon'ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the foregoing ground of appeal as and when considered necessary 2. As the issues raised in these appeals are common relate to different assesse s at the request of all the parties, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance relates to disallowance of employees contribution to PF ESIC and for adjudicating this issue we take the facts in case of Natraj Dal Mill in ITANo.153/Ind/2021 and our decision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of another assessee namely Ashok Somani in ITANo.131/Ind/2021. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a partnership firm. Return of income for A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2018] 90 taxmann.com 51(Bombay) 7. Per contra ld. DR submitted that the issue is debatable and some of the Hon'ble High Courts have also decided against the assessee on this particular issue, but agreed that no decisions on this issue have been given by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Reliance placed on following decisions: 1.Pr. CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2020) 115 Taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat) b. CIT vs. Merchem ltd. [2015} 378 ITR 443 (Kerala) c. CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2015) 232 Taxman 241(Kerala) 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Sole issue relates to disallowance of employees contribution of PF/ESIC at ₹ 1,26,653/-. We note that as per the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on record and gone through the orders of the Authorities below. In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case cited (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: 3. However, taking into consideration, the judgement of this court in the case of assessee itself in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.150/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Jaipur-2 v. M/s. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd.) decided on 4.8.2016 wherein Division Bench observed as under: 5. So far as the question relating to privilege fees amounting to Rs, 26.00 Crores in the instant year as well as the deduction of claim of ₹ 17,80,765/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) and ESI is concerned, the Court has extensi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition of ₹ 4,17,302/- on account or disallowance of EPF and ESIC late deposit. The appellant made the above payments before filing of return of income. The above expenditure is allowable expenditure in view of Hon'ble ITAT, lndore's decision in the case of Asst. CIT v .Indira Export Pvt Ltd. (201 3) 21 ITJ 372 (Trib. - Indore)- Employees contribution to provident Fund- Employees contribution to Provident Fund -Employees contribution to Provident Fund - Deletion of second proviso to section 43B- HELD-In view of CIT v Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2010) 14 ITJ 133(SC), deletion of second proviso is retrospective-Therefore, even if employees contribution is deposited before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
