TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and the same is applicable from 1/4/2021 onwards only. In the present case we are concerned with the asst. year 2017-18 and the amended provision could not be applied retrospectively as it is only applicable w.e.f 1/4/2021. Being so no disallowance could be made by the AO in respect of PF/ESI paid within the due date of filing return of income. Though, it was beyond the date mentioned in the respective Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 45/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2022 - Chandra Poojari , Member ( A ) And Beena Pillai , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Mahesh G., CA For the Respondents : Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 19,04,700/- beyond the time prescribed under the relevant Act. Now the claim of assessee is that the above payment has been made towards PF beyond due date prescribed under the relevant Act, however, the same was made within due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration. As such the said amount cannot be disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and it is not hit by explanation 2 to sec. 36(1)(va) of the Act which calls for payment within the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. For this purpose he relied on the judgment in the case of Essac Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), wherein it has held as under: 15. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Contribution . The expression contribution is also defined under the PF Act by Section 2(c) of the PF Act, which means a contribution payable in respect of a member under the Scheme or the contribution payable in respect of an employee to whom the Insurance Scheme applies. If this definition is read with sub-para (1) of paragraph-29 in Chapter-V of the PF Scheme, it would mean that the contributions payable by the employer under the Scheme shall be at a particular rate and the contribution payable by the assessee shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer. 18. Paragraph-30 of the PF Scheme provides for payment of contributions. Sub-para (1) of paragraph-30 states that the employer shall, in the first instance, pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that as his income, deserves to be rejected. 22. With respect, we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. We agree with the view taken by this Court in W.A. No. 407712013. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law framed by us is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Further, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sabari En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in this case at the time of submitting returns of income under section 139 of the Act to the Revenue in respect of the previous year can be claimed by the assessees for deduction out of their gross income. The above said statutory provisions of the Income-tax Act abundantly makes it clear that, the contention urged on behalf of the Revenue that deduction from out of gross income for payment of tax at the time of submission of returns under section 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of provident fund or other contribution funds referred to in clause (b) are paid within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [2021] 128 taxman.com 192 [Hyderabad Tribunal] 3. M/s. Crescent Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy CIT-ITA No. 1952/Hyderabad/2018 4. M/s. Mahadev Cold Storage Vs. Jurisdictional AO ITA No. 41 42/Agra/2021 5. M/s. Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT - [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka) 6. Anand Kumar Jain Vs. ITO - ITA No. 4192/MUM/2012 Value Momentum Software Services Private Limited vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2197/HYD/2017 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] dated 19.05.2021; 7. Mohan Ram Chaudhary vs. ITO ITA No. 51 54-55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
