9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hashank Mehta (through virtual) Respondents by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY These appeals preferred by the above-mentioned assessees as per the captioned matter emanates from the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A)/(NFAC) for the respective assessment years as appearing hereinabove, as per the following grounds of appeal. ITA No. 435/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 Gallaghar Service Center LLP : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: 1. Ground 1 : Disallowance of expenditure in respect of employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance ((ESI) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the ld. DCIT, CPC in disallowing expenditure of Rs. 97,18,285/- in relation to employees contribution to provident fund and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act even though the same has been paid before the due date of filing return of income and is thereby allowable u/s 43B of the Act. In doing so, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in : (a) Not following the principle of judicial discipline by ignoring the favourable decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court ( HC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v Cold Storage Vs. AO and Vijai Electricals Vs. DCIT wherein it is held that the amendment made tosecitonm43B by the Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature and cannot be applied for the period prior to 01-04-2021. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 2. At the very outset, we find that appeal in ITA No. 464/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 in the case of Goldys Precision Stampings Pvt. Ltd. is time-barred by 6 days. Following the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 since the delay was covering pandemic outbreak period, we condone the same and the case is heard on merits. 3. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in all these appeals are absolutely identical and similar. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. 4. The only issue involved in all these appeals is the disallowance of employees contribution to Provident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhabutmal Shah listed at Sl. No.1 of above cause title filed a copy of recent decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai vs. ADIT in ITA No.466/PUN/2021 for the assessment year 2019-20 order dated 22.06.2022 stating that the identical issue was decided by the Tribunal (supra) in favour of the assessee. Referring to this decision of the Tribunal (supra), he submitted that principle of consistency should be applied to the facts of the present case. The ld. CIT-DR has expressed no objection on this submission of the assessee. 9. Considering the submission of the ld. AR and perusing the recent decision of the Tribunal (supra), we find that the identical issue was came up before this Tribunal in the case of Prashant Arun Sangai (supra) wherein the Tribunal decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). The relevant paragraphs of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) are extracted herein under :- 4. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appeara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.1,46,592/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.538/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 stands allowed. 6. In the aforestated decision, the Tribunal has relied on Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom) which followed the decision of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabrics Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP). Therefore, we are of the considered view that this issue is no more res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
