9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 144/JP/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) - - - Dated:- 29-11-2021 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessee by : Shri Manish Vyas (CA) Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) ORDER PER: N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 26/07/2021 of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. The learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi erred in confirming addition of ₹ 3,91,256/- made by the CPC, Bengaluru U/Sec. 36(I)(va) of the act by disallowing late deposit of employees contribution to Provident fund but before the filing of return of income U/Sec. 139(I) of the Act. 2. That the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not considering the fact in view of the decision of jurisdictional High Court on the same issue, disallowance cannot be made when the amount is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru, in ITA No. 60/Jodh/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20 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 Koltaka, 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) for the simple reason that the Explanation 5 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021 and relevant assessment year before us is AY 2019-20. Therefore the law laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 put a check on the said claims/deductions having been made, the said provision was brought in to curb the said activities and which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. (supra). 21. A conjoint reading of the proviso to Section 43-B which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 considered view, the ld CIT(A) ought to have considered and followed the decision of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, as evident from series of decisions referred supra, as the same is binding on all the appellate authorities as well as the Assessing officer under its jurisdiction in the State of Rajasthan. 18. In light of aforesaid discussi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
