TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowance made by the A.O -Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.88/RPR/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2022 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Nilesh Jain, CA For the Revenue : Shri Choudhary N. C Roy, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur, dated 25.01.2019, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 21.03.2016 for assessment year 2013-14. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: 1. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his aforesaid contentions. 7. Admittedly, it is though a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee firm had delayed deposit of an amount of Rs.16,15,349/- towards employee s share of contributions towards PF ESI i.e. beyond the stipulated time perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a party), wherein after exhaustive deliberations it was held as under : Adverting to the disallowance of the assessee s claim for deduction of the employees share of contribution towards PF of Rs.2,88,976/-, we find that the same had been disallowed by the Assessing Officer u/s.2(24)(x) of the Act, for the reason that the said amount was deposited beyond the stipulated time period that was prescribed under the said Employees Welfare Fund Act. Before us, it was claimed by the Ld. AR, that now when the aforesaid amounts were deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of its return of income for the year under consideration, therefore, the same were allowable as a deduction u/s.43B of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. CIT Vs. Amil Ltd reported (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court) ii. CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 (P H) iii. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd.Vs. CIT 386 ITR 410 (Patna) iv. Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (All) v. CIT Vs. Mark Auto Industries (2008) 358 ITR 43 (P H) vi. CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307 (Raj) vii. Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (2014)366 ITR 408 (Kar) viii. CIT Vs. Vijay Shree Ltd (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 396 (Cal) ix. CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co Ltd (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand) In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the considered view that no distinction is to be drawn between the employers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and some are against the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the judgments and orders relied upon by the assessee have been rendered before the clarificatory amendments made in the Finance Act, 2021 and the Finance Act, 2021 has put an end to this controversy. 5.2 Admittedly there is plethora of judgments in favour of the Assessee s contention and of the Revenue. The controversy with regard to divergent views of different High Courts, has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vegetables Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192) by laying the dictum that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the Assessee must be adopted. The Hon ble jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 43B of the Act, by inserting Explanations by the Finance Act, 2021 and clearly held that the amendment shall be applicable from 1st April, 2021 onwards . It is also relevant to note that the CBDT has also issued Memorandum of Explanation qua applicability of the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) 43B of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2021, and Assessment Year 2021-21 onwards, hence there is no doubt qua applicability of the amended provisions referred above, prospectively. On the aforesaid discussion, the second aspect as considered/determined by the ld. CIT(A) qua retrospective application of the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act wherein Explanations have been inserted by Finance Act, 2021 qua employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
