9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is only applicable w.e.f 1/4/2021. Being so no disallowance could be made by the AO in respect of PF/ESI paid within the due date of filing return of income. Though, it was beyond the date mentioned in the respective Act. This view of ours is supported by various judgment relied on by the ld.AR. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 42/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2022 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Rajagopal, CA For the Respondents : Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 16.11.2021 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the relevant Act, however, the same was made within due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration. As such the said amount cannot be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and it is not hit by explanation 2 to sec. 36(1)(va) of the Act which calls for payment within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. For this purpose he relied on the judgment in the case of Essac Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), wherein it has held as under: 15. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that under the provision, for IT Act, an extension is given to the employer to make payment of contribution to provident fund or any other fund till the due date applicable for fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Scheme or the contribution payable in respect of an employee to whom the Insurance Scheme applies. If this definition is read with sub-para (1) of paragraph-29 in Chapter-V of the PF Scheme, it would mean that the contributions payable by the employer under the Scheme shall be at a particular rate and the contribution payable by the assessee shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer. 18. Paragraph-30 of the PF Scheme provides for payment of contributions. Sub-para (1) of paragraph-30 states that the employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution) and also, on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay tax on the said amount treating that as his income, deserves to be rejected. 22. With respect, we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. We agree with the view taken by this Court in W.A. No. 407712013. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law framed by us is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Further, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.) has held as under: This clause is inserted by the Finance Act with effect from April 1, 1988. The Explanation to this clause is read ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itting returns of income under section 139 of the Act to the Revenue in respect of the previous year can be claimed by the assessees for deduction out of their gross income. The above said statutory provisions of the Income-tax Act abundantly makes it clear that, the contention urged on behalf of the Revenue that deduction from out of gross income for payment of tax at the time of submission of returns under section 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of provident fund or other contribution funds referred to in clause (b) are paid within the due date under the respective statutory enactments by the assessees as contended by learned counsel for the Revenue is not tenable in law and therefore the same cannot be accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... torage Vs. Jurisdictional AO-ITA No. 41 42/Agra/2021. 5. M/s. Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT - [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka) 6. Anand Kumar Jain Vs. ITO - ITA No. 4192/MUM/2012 Value Momentum Software Services Private Limited vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2197/HYD/2017 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51 54-55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 ITD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
