9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Diamond Red Tanneries Versus The DCIT, CC-1 Jalandhar / ITO W-1, Kapurthala M/s S.S. Forgings Versus The ITO Ward-2(4) Jalandhar Variety Enterprises Versus The DCIT CPC Bangluru / The DCIT / ACIT Circle-1, Jalandhar Wonderland Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd Versus The DCIT, Circle-4 Jalandhar Amar India Woollen Mills Private Limited Versus The DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru / ITO Ward 1(1), Amritsar Punjab True Value Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Versus The ITO Ward-4(1), Jalandhar N.V.R Forgings Versus The ITO Ward-1(5), Jalandhar N.K. Saini, Vice President And Ravish Sood, Member (J) For the Appellant : Ashwani Kalia, Ranjan Sehgal, CAs, Vikas Bhagat, Advocate, Sandeep Vij, Surendra Mahajan, S.K. Vatta, Jitendra Arora, CAs, J.S. Bhasin, Advocate and Jitendra Salhotra, CA For the Respondents : S.M. Surendranath, Sr. DR ORDER All the above appeals filed by different assessees are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi, as per following details: Sl.No. Appeal No. Name of Case C I T ( A p p e a l / s ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. ITA No. 168/Asr/2021 N.V.R. Forgings C I T ( A ) , N F A C , D e l h i 11/10/2021 2. Since the issues 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. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 101/Asr/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20 read as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in holding that addition of ₹ 217287 was rightly made by CPC, Bangalore vide order u/s. 143(1) being the amount of delayed deposit of employees' share of Provident Fund ESI by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on facts in holding that such prima facie adjustment to the returned income could have been made by CPC inspite of several judgment of High Courts and ITAT in favour of assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 217287 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the aforesaid referred to case, wherein the undersigned is author of the order dated 28.09.2021 and it has been held vide paras 7 to 10 in ITA in ITA Nos. 71 72/Jodh/2021 as under:- 7. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated by the various Benches of the ITAT. 8.2 In the case of Harendra Nath Biswas vs. DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20, similar issue has been decided vide order dated 16.7.2021 by the ITAT 'B' Bench, Kolkata. The Relevant findings have been given in para 4 of the said order, which read as under;- 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. First of all we do not countenance this action of the Ld. CIT(A) f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 employees contribution of EPF ESI fund and as per the binding decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Vijayshree Ltd. (supra) u/s. 36(1)(va) 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. 9. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad 'SMC Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd., Hyderabad vs ITO vide order dt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- 2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of ₹ 1,09,343/- and ₹ 3,52,622/-, the assessee's and revenue's stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Courts has decided the matter in favour of the assessee. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to held as under: 20. On perusal of Sec. 36(1)(va) and Sec. 43(B)(b) and analyzing the judgments rendered, in our view as well, it is clear that the legislature brought in the statute Section 43(B)(b) to curb the activities of such tax payers who did not discharge their statutory liability of payment of dues, as aforesaid; and rightly so as on the one hand claim was being made under Section 36 for allowing the deduction of GPF, CPF, ESI etc. as per the system followed by the assessees in claiming the deduction i.e. accrual basis and the same was being allowed, as the liability did exist but the said amount though claimed as a deduction was not being deposited even after lapse of several years. Therefore, to pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), and CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited (supra). In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 17. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court but has decided to follow the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi, Madras, Gujarat and Kerala High Courts. Given the divergent views taken by the various High Courts and in the instant case, the fact that the jurisdiction over the Assessing officer lies with the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, in our consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
