9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of employee's provident fund (EPD) and employee s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of employer under section 2(24)(x) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 1603 & 1604/DEL/2021 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2022 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri P. roychoudhary, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM: These two appeals, by the assessee, pertaining to the assessment year 2018- 19 and 2019-20 are directed against separate orders dated 31.08.2021 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee contended that the issue in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. Learned counsel for the assessee further reiterated the submissions as made in the brief synopsis. For the sake of clarity, the brief synopsis is reproduced herein below: The Appellant Company filed its ITR for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 29.10.2018. The Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore processed the return of income of the Appellant Company under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act on 04.03.2020 by disallowing a sum of ₹ 18,06,399 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court. The decisions are as follows: (i) CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited in ITA No. 1063 of 2006 dated 23.12.2009. (ii) CITVs.SPL Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 794/2010 dated 07.07.2010. (2) The second issue i.e. whether the insertion of Explanation 2 inserted by Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1 )(va) of the Act is prospective or retrospective in nature has also been settled by various judgments of this Ld. Tribunal in the following cases: (i) Indian Geotechnical Services Vs. ACIT, Circle - 61(1), Delhi in ITA No. 622/Del/2018 dated 27.08.2021. (ITAT, Delhi). (ii) Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai in ITA No. 622/Del/2018 dated 08.12.2021. (ITAT, Chennai). In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, for considering such question, application of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation would only defeat the object and scope of both the provisions viz., 43B and 36(1)(va). If the payment was not done within the stipulated time prescribed under the relevant enactment, the benefit of deduction cannot be claimed, since such belated payment is not a valid payment to attract deduction, under the purview of the Income Tax Act. In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the Finance Act, 2021 is held to be applicable to the present pending appeal. 6. I find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of employee's provident fund (EPD) and employee s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of employer under section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 9. Therefore, respectfully following the binding precedent, I hereby delete the addition. The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed. 10. In ITA no. 1604/Del/2021 for assessment year 2019-20, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That in the facts of the case and as per law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions/disallowances made by CPC in the returned income while processing the ITR under section 143(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
