9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case are that the assessee-company has paid employees contribution of ESI and Provident Fund with the delay. However, the same was remitted before due date of filing of return. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has disallowed the same u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") vide order dated 21.02.2019 u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. The assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A), without adjudicating the issue on merits, dismissed the appeal since there was a delay of 10 days and not explained properly by the assessee. 4. On appeal before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A) within time as the circumstances beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay has to be condoned and the appeal has to be disposed off by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra). In view of the above, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. In so far as the merits of the case is concerned, employees contribution in respect of PF and ESI paid before the filing of return of income, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has considered the issue, which is reproduced as under: "2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent/assessee filed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re us. It is not in dispute that all these payments of provident fund Rs. 16,20,571/- and ESI Rs. 17,51,490/- were made beyond the grace period/due date allowed under Provident Fund & ESI Acts but before due date for filing of income-tax return. This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by various High Courts following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to section 43B and amendment of first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively and thus with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e. the date of insertion of first proviso. The coordinate Bench of this Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. M/s. S.M. Apparels (P) Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal has been consistently following the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim expenditure on employee's contribution towards ESI and Provident Fund for both the AYs. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 6. Respectfully following the above, decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete disallowances made under section 43B of the Act for both these assessment years. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed." 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court. 4. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
