TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ISHNA ASWINI KUMAR [ 2021 (10) TMI 952 - ITAT BANGALORE] . Addition towards the deposit of the employees s contribution towards ESI and PF paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 124/JP/2021 (Assessment Years : 2014-15) - - - Dated:- 9-11-2021 - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM Assessee by: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (ACIT) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Delhi (NFAC) dated 23.07.2021 for the assessment year 2014- 15 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,24,135/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF ESI. He has further erred in confirming the addition by ignoring that the amount has been deposited within the grace period of 5 days as provided under the relevant Act. He has further erred in confirming the addition by not following the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been disallowed by the AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein the explanation to Section 36(1)(va) has been introduced. It was submitted from the said amendment, it is evident that the law is and has always very clear i.e. employee s contribution to specified fund will not be allowed as deduction U/s 36(1)(va) if there is delay in deposit even by a single day as per the due dates mentioned in the respective legislation. It is also clear that the amendments are only declaratory/clarificatory in nature and are therefore, applicable with retrospective effect by necessary intendment of deeming nature expressly stated therein. The ld. DR accordingly submitted that in view of the unambiguous wording of the now amended provisions of Section 36(1) and 43B, it is clear that the employee s contribution can be allowed as a deduction only if it had been paid within the prescribed due dates under the relevant welfare funds and this position of law is and has always been the case and the clarification brought about by the amendment clearly apply retrospectively. It was therefore rightly held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he one hand claim was being made under Section 36 for allowing the deduction of GPF, CPF, ESI etc. as per the system followed by the assessees in claiming the deduction i.e. accrual basis and the same was being allowed, as the liability did exist but the said amount though claimed as a deduction was not being deposited even after lapse of several years. Therefore, to put a check on the said claims/deductions having been made, the said provision was brought in to curb the said activities and which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. (supra). 21. A conjoint reading of the proviso to Section 43-B which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 made effective from 01/04/1988, the words numbered as clause (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further envisage that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted the various decisions of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court but has decided to follow the decisions rendered by the Hon ble Delhi, Madras, Gujarat and Kerala High Courts. Given the divergent views taken by the various High Courts and in the instant case, the fact that the jurisdiction over the Assessing officer lies with the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, in our considered view, the ld CIT(A) ought to have considered and followed the decision of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, as evident from series of decisions referred supra, as the same is binding on all the appellate authorities as well as the Assessing officer under its jurisdiction in the State of Rajasthan. 18. In light of aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the addition by way of adjustment while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) amounting to ₹ 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
