TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi, as per following details: Sl.No. Appeal No. Name of Case CIT(Appeal / s ) Order dt. 1. ITA No. 138/Asr/2021 M/s Amar Coach Builders CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 01/09/2021 2. ITA No. 139/Asr/2021 Shri Satish Kumar CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 25/08/2021 3. ITA No. 169/Asr/2021 Shri Sanjeev Kumar CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 25/09/2021 2. Since the issues involved are common in all the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We shall first deal with ITA No. 138/Asr/2021 in case of M/s. Amar Coach Builders for the A.Y. 2019-20. 4. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is belated by 10 days and the defect memo was issued. In response to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) ignored the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court other submissions filed by the assessee before him. 2.2 That in any case the disallowance of ₹ 6,11,928/- deserves to be deleted. 3. That the order passed is without jurisdiction and illegal. 4. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 9. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of ₹ 6,11,928/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal. 11. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in ITA Nos. 191 192/Chd/2021 for the assessment years 2017-18 2018-19 in the case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar and in the case of Sanchi Management Services Private Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined to follow the same and we reproduce the order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vijayshree Ltd. supra wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has taken note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. reported in 390 ITR 306. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in Vijayshree Ltd. supra is reproduced as under: This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against an order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 1091/Kol/2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A). The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the deletion of the addition by the AO on account of Employees 'Contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol. 390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s. 43Bas against employee u/s. 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue's case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. Jairam Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur Others vs CPC, Bangalore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made effective from 01/04/1988, the words numbered as clause (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, furthermore 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 admissible at the time of submitting return of the income under Section 139 of the Act in respect of the previous year can be claimed by the assessee for deduction out of their gross total income. It is also clear that Sec. 43B starts with a notwithstanding clause would thus override Sec. 36(1) (va) and if read in isolation Sec. 43B would become obsolete. Accordingly, contention of counsel for the revenue is not tenable for the reason aforesaid that deductions out of the gross income for payment of tax at the time of submission of return under Section 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of PF or other contribution referred to in Clause (b) are paid within the due date u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different Benches of the ITAT, the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of deposits of employees contribution of ESI PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. 12. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
