9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved are common in all 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. We shall first deal with ITA No. 138/Asr/2021 in case of M/s. Amar Coach Builders for the A.Y. 2019-20. 4. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is belated by 10 days and the defect memo was issued. In response to the said defect memo, the assessee vide application dt. 10/11/2021 submitted as under: APPLICATION FOR REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY: The assessee respectfully submits as under:- 1. The appeal was due to be held on 30.10.2021, it has been filed on 09.11.2021, therefore, delay of 10 days is prayed to be condoned. 2. The appeal could not be filed earlier due to technical faults in the website and the assessee was trying but was not able to file appeal earlier online due to technical glitches on the website, so the appeal is i. That in the latest order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2022, the Hon'ble Court has directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Chd/2021 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar and in the case of Sanchi Management Services Private Limited Vs. ITO, Chandigarh in ITA No. 190/Chd/2021 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 12. In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 13. We 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, Chandigarh Bench in the aforesaid referred to cases, wherein one of us is author of the order dated 20/10/2021. In the said order it has been held vide paras 8 to 10 in ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Chd/2021 in case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar as under:- 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol. 390 ITR 306, held that the deletion 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Bangalore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- "13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. 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 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that deductions out of the gross income for payment of tax at the time of submission of return under Section 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of PF or other contribution referred to in Clause (b) are paid within the due date under the respective enactments by the assessees 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 respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ESI & PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. 12. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed." 10. So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted. 14. Since the facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts involved in the case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar (supra). So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted. 15. In other appeals i.e. ITA No. 139/Asr/2021 and 169/Asr/2021 the facts are identical to the facts involved, in ITA No. 138/Asr/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20, the only difference is in the amount involved and the number of days delay in filing the appeals which were at 18 days and 17 days respectively and difference in the amounts involved which were at Rs. 2,36,896/- and Rs. 26,14,264/- respectively.. Therefore our findings given in the former part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
