TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No. 594 And 595/Bang/2021 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2021 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR) For the Assessee : Smt. Susan Mathew, C.A ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-11 dated 22/9/2021 for the asst. years 2018- 19 and 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised common grounds of appeal in both the appeals except change in figures. 1. The CPC/AO grievously erred by disallowing employees contribution to PF amounting to ₹ 28,72,795/- and Employee State Insurance ₹ 47,795/- (aggregating to ₹ 29,20,5 90/-) u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x), without appreciating that the same was remitted well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) for AY 2018-19, and that the matter in dispute is already settled in favour o your appellant by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court. Tax effect ₹ 7,52,052/- 2. The NFAC has erred in upholding the order of the CPC without considering that the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 is prospectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return. In short, this provision states, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision contained in this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable in this Act in respect of any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any fund such as provident fund shall be allowed if it is paid on or before the due date as contemplated under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. This provision has nothing to do with the consequences, provided for under the PF Act/PF Scheme/ESI Act, for not depositing the contribution on or before the due dates therein. 16. In the present case, admittedly, though the employer did not deposit the contribution, within the stipulated time, as contemplated by paragraph-30 of the PF Scheme or before the due date under the provisions of the PF scheme/Act, he deposited the contribution to the PF/ESI fund before the due date contemplated under Section 139(1) of the Act. 17. Section 6 of the PF Act provides for contributions and matters which may be provided for in Schemes. Paragraph- 29 of the PF Scheme states what is Contribution . The expression contribution is also defined under the PF Act by Section 2(c) of the PF Act, which m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th 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. 10. 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 very carefully. Due date has been explained stating that: means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit contribution to the employees' account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule or order or notification issued thereunder or under any standing order, award, contract of service or otherwise. Prior to the above clause was inserted to section 36 giving statutory deductions of payment of tax under the provisions of the Act, section 43B(b) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, which came into force with effect fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and paragraph 59 referred to supra in this judgment from the Finance Bill with all fours supports the case of the assessee/ respondents. Therefore, we have to answer the substantial question of law No. 1 framed by this court in these appeals at the instance of the Revenue against them, viz., in the negative. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question No.1 framed in these appeals in the negative. 12. Further, the ld.AR relied on the following judgments:- 1. In Re-Cognizance for Extension of Limitation - Supreme Court of India in M.P No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020 dt.19/7/2021. 2. Salzgitter Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO [2021] 128 taxman.com 192 [Hyderabad Tribunal] 3. M/s Crescent Roadways Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT - 4. M/s Mahadev Cold Storage 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. 2 197/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. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
