9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the addition. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. Scope of amendment - We also take note of the plea of the assessee that delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is not disallowable as the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B effected by Finance Act, 2021 were applicable prospectively in relation to Assessment Year 2021-22 and subsequent years. Therefore, the claim of deduction of contribution to Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) and Provident Fund u/s. 36(1)(va) could not be denied to the assessee in Assessment Year 2017-18 in question on the basis of amendments made by Finance Act, 2021. For this proposition, we find support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), ['CIT(A)' in short], dated 19.09.2021 arising from the intimation order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Asst. Director of Income Tax, Central Processing Center, Bangalore, under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2019-20. 2. At the time of hearing, it was noticed that there is a delay in filing of appeal by 14 days. It was submitted that the delay has occurred on account of Covid-19 for which the limitation period has been extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC). The delay being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resorted to the additions under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. 7. It is the case of the assessee before lower authorities that it has deposited the employee's contribution in EPF and ESI before the due date of filing of return of income stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act. 8. We find that the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 10.09.2018 in ITA No. 983/2018. The extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in (2021) 91 ITR (Trib.)(S.N.) 60 (Bang.) and Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 402 and 403/Chny/2021 order dated 08.12.2021. Consequently, the action of revenue on this score is set aside and cancelled. 11. We further notice that the impugned addition of Rs. 19,19,534/- has been made while processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 475 (Mum. Trib) observed that scope of prima facie disallowance under Section 143 is inherently very limited and only such disallowance can be made under this statutory provision as can be conclusively held to be inadmissible based on material o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
