TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 278/JP/2021 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2022 - Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM And Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, AM For the Assessee : Shri Rahis Mohammed, CA For the Revenue : Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 29-07-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference by both the parties in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3.0 The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in the violating of principle of faceless appeal as announced for justice of honest taxpayers and the functioning of faceless processing s in honesty and judicially manner and to avoid litigation as created unnecessary by the AO. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is national wide Covid 19 Pandemic situation which is beyond the control of the human being. It is observed that the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- The Legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression sufficient cause in section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. Every day's delay must be explained does not imply a pedantic approach. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an evenhanded manner. There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Jurisdictional High court is not considered while passing the order by the NFAC and has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Merchem Ltd., 378 ITR 443 and Hon'ble Madras High also where the contrary views there in respect of this issue. The NFAC has also relied upon various decision connected these Hon'ble High Courts and the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2021 and contended that the amendment being curative in nature should apply retrospectively. 5.4. Since the CIT(A)/NFAC has quoted the amendment made in Finance Act, 2021, it is worthwhile to record the extract of the memorandum explaining the change made in the relevant provisions of the Act. Rationalisation of various Provisions Payment by employer of employee contribution to a fund on or before due date Clause (24) of section 2 of the Act provides an inclusive definition of the income. Subclause (x) to the said clause provide that income to include any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contribution to any provident fund or supera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contribution towards welfare funds. Employee s contribution is employee own money and the employer deposits this contribution on behalf of the employee in fiduciary capacity. By late deposit of employee contribution, the employers get unjustly enriched by keeping the money belonging to the employees. Clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act was inserted to the Act vide Finance Act 1987 as a measures of penalizing employers who mis-utilize employee s contributions. Accordingly, in order to provide certainty, it is proposed to (i) amend clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act by inserting another explanation to the said clause to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the due date under this clause; and (ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee as part of its return of income, it is noted that the assessee has deposited the employees s contribution towards ESI and PF well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) and the last of such deposits were made on 16.04.2019 whereas due date of filing the return for the impugned assessment year 2019-20 was 31.10.2019 and the return of income was also filed on the said date. Admittedly and undisputedly, the employees s contribution to ESI and PF which have been collected by the assessee from its employees have thus been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 14. The issue is no more res integra in light of series of decisions rendered by the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court starting from CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur (supra) and subsequent decisions. 15. In this regard, we may refer to the initial decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur wherein the Hon ble High Court after extensively examining the matter and considering the various decisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date under the respective enactments by the assessees and not under the due date of filing of return. 22. We have already observed that till this provision was brought in as the due amounts on one pretext or the other were not being deposited by the assessees though substantial benefits had been obtained by them in the shape of the amount having been claimed as a deduction but the said amounts were not deposited. It is pertinent to note that the respective Act such as PF etc. also provides that the amounts can be paid later on subject to payment of interest and other consequences and to get benefit under the Income Tax Act, an assessee ought to have actually deposited the entire amount as also to adduce evidence regarding such deposit on or before the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act. 23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. 16. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly apply to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years . In the instant case, the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2018-19 and therefore, the said amended provisions cannot be applied in the instant case. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bangalore Benches in case of Shri Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar vs. ACIT (supra) wherein it has held as under:- 7. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment to the provisions to section 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, has to be construed as retrospective and applicable for the period prior to 01.04.2021 also. On this aspect, we find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee before filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year. I find that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (supra) has held that no disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd (supra) and Indian Geotechnical Services (supra). As far as the applicability of amendment made by Finance Act 2021 is concerned, I find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Indian Geotechnical Services (supra) has held that amendment made by Finance Bill 2021 shall take effect from 1st April 2021 and will accordingly apply to A.Y. 2021-11 and subsequent years. In the present case assessment year involved is 2018-19 and therefore following the aforesaid decision in thecase of Indian Geotechnical Services (supra), I am of the view that the amended provisions would have no application to the case under consideration. Before me, Learned DR has relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
