TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be made of the said amount if it has been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1). Thus no disallowance was called for u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in the case of the assessee as the assessee deserves a relief as per the provisions of Section 43B of the Act as the alleged amount has been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 01/Kol/2022 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2022 - Sri Manish Borad , Accountant Member And Sri Sonjoy Sarma , Judicial Member Sh. Somnath Ghosh, Adv. , appeared on behalf of the Assessee Sh. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. CIT , appeared on behalf of the Revenue ORDER Per Manish Borad , Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23/-made u/s. 2(24)(x) read with s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Id. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C.P.C. relying upon the amendment by Finance Act, 2021 misconstruing it retrospectively and the purported findings on that behalf is altogether unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law. 4. FOR THAT the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC considered improper facts, failed to consider proper position in law and came to an erroneous findings thereupon in upholding the impugned disallowance of ₹ 30,72,623/- made by the Id. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C.P.C. by erroneous invocation of the provision of u/s. 2(24)(x) read with s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is wholly opposed to law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concerned Department working under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) or any other fund for the welfare of the employees, before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. This fact is verifiable from the Tax Audit Report and also from the observation of the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO in view of the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 through Explanation- 2 which reads that For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the due date under this clause . Ld. CIT(A) has held that the above Expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CPC while processing the return disallowed/added ₹ 1,10,62,263/- on the ground that employees contribution to employees provident fund (EPF) and ESI fund has been deposited beyond the due date applicable under the provision of ESI Act, 1948 and EPF Act by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance, the assessee filed the appeal before the national Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi where the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note of the assessee s submission that no disallowance was warranted in respect of delayed deposit of employees contribution to EPF/ESI fund since the assessee has deposited the employees contribution in respect of both these Acts (EPF ESI Act) before filing the return of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 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. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instant appeal is squarely covered by the above decision and since the ld. D/R failed to bring any binding precedence in favour of the Revenue before us, we, respectfully following the judicial precedence, hold that no disallowance of ₹ 30,72,623/- was called for u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in the case of the assessee as the assessee deserves a relief as per the provisions of Section 43B of the Act as the alleged amount has been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. We, therefore, reverse the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 03rd March, 2022. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
