TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment to section 43B was applicable to both employer's as well as employees' contribution. Furthermore, the amendment brought out in the Finance Act, 2021 was only prospective and not retrospective thereby was applicable only to assessment year 2021-22 onwards and to subsequent years. We are of the considered opinion that the contribution towards EPF/ESI paid after the specified due date under the relevant Acts, but nevertheless paid before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, is allowable. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction as claimed. Appeal of the assessee succeeds. - ITA No. 86/MUM/2022 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2022 - Prashant Maharshi , Member ( A ) and Kavith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) 11 has erred in confirming the adjustment u/s. 143(a) as done by CPC under section 43B and section 36(1)(va) as done by CPC under section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of Rs. 1625634. The adjustment done by the CPC in the intimation being beyond the purview of section 143(1)(a) and the adjustment being not prima facie adjustment should have been deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Instead, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), has erred in holding the adjustment to be in order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of manufacturing engineering products. The assessee filed its return of income on 01/10/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 33,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m it fit to set aside this ground of appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the ground of the assessee. This ground is treated as allowed, for statistical purpose. 4. With regard to the other grounds, the Ld. AR for the assessee contended that the impugned amount was deposited before the due date for filing the return of income and relied upon various judgments including jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom) and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, alleged that the said amount should have been deposited before the due date specified under the relevant Acts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ........ In our considered view, it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer CPC to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court - more so, when his attention was specifically invited to the binding judicial precedents in this regard. For this reason also, the inputs in question in the tax audit report can not be reason enough to make the impugned disallowance. The assessee must succeed for this reason as well. Therefore, following the above judicial precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the contribution towards EPF/ESI paid after the specified due date under the relevant Acts, but nevertheless paid before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
