TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 23-8-2021 - P. Madhavi Devi, Member (J) For the Appellant : C.S. Sree Lekha For the Respondents : Waseem-ur-Rehman, DR ORDER This is assessee's appeal for the A.Y. 2019-20 against the order, dated 10.12.2019 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi in the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad. 2. The only issue in this appeal is the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act of delayed deposit of ESI Employees Provident Fund Contribution. I find that the A.Y. before the Tribunal is 2019-20 and by way of Finance Act of 2021, Explanation (v) to section 43B of the Act was introduced and it is clarified therein that the Employees Contribution to the P.F and ESI d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO viewed that as the amounts were paid into the respective accounts belatedly beyond the due date specified under the provisions of the respective statutes, the AO made the addition to the returned income of the assessee. 3.2. Against the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) in his detailed order, confirmed the addition made by the AO, holding that the assessee having not remitted the contribution to the respective accounts before the due dates specified under the Act, the same are not allowable deductions u/s. 43B of the Act. Hence, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, against the order of Ld. CIT(A). 3.3. During the appeal hearing, Ld. AR argued that the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI within the prescribed date as mentioned in section 36(1)(va). Though, the assessee did not challenge the disallowance before learned CIT(A) but he raised an additional ground before us challenging the said disallowance. It is the contention of the assessee that the employees contribution to ESI and PF though, was not paid within the due date as prescribed under section 36(1)(va) but such dues having been paid before the due date of filing of return of the income as prescribed under section 139(1), the amount is allowable as a deduction as per the provisions of section 43B. We find merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. There are a number of judicial precedents on this issue w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 307/49 taxmann.com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue . Against which the revenue has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and respectfully following the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of KLR Industries Ltd., Vs. DCIT (supra), we hold that no disallowance cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
