TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court while making the impugned disallowance on account of delay in the deposit of employees contribution to PF/ESI. The co-ordinate bench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [ 2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the employees contribution deposited after respective due date cannot be allowed as deduction, and, therefore, it would be incorrect to say that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable only in the case of an assessment farmed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In our considered view, the ratio decidendi is equally applicable for the intimation framed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Now coming to the challenge that the impugned adjustment is beyond the powers of the CPC Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act is also not correct. In light of the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra], as mentioned elsewhere, it cannot be stated that the impugned adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the powers of the CPC, Bengaluru. Power under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in all the appeals by the assessees/Revenue relates to the additions/disallowances made on account of delayed deposit of Employees Contribution to ESI/PF and in Revenue s appeal, the grievance is similar, though the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance whereas in the other appeals, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 4. The undisputed fact in the captioned appeals is that there was a delay in depositing the employees contribution and the contribution has been deposited beyond the date stipulated under the relevant Fund Act. 5. Though the quarrel is no more res integra, as it has been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd 143 Taxmann.com 178. But, before us, the decision of the co-ordinate bench at Mumbai has been placed in the case of PR Packaging Service in ITA No. 2376/MUM/2022 and it has been seriously argued that the co-ordinate bench has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and yet decided the quarrel in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. Another argument taken before us is that the disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme, 2011 states that Where a return is processed at the Centre, the appeal proceedings relating to the processing of the return shall lie with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer Then situs of the CPC or the Assessing Office CPC is thus irrelevant for the purpose of ascertaining the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, in the present case, whether the CPC is within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Bombay High Court or not, as for the regular Assessing Officer of the assessee and the assessee are located in the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the jurisdictional High Court, for all matters pertaining to the assessee, will be Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 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 binding judicial precedents in this regard. For this reason also, the inputs in question in the tax audit report cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date. The last expression due date was dealt with in the explanation as the date by which such amounts had to be credited by the employer, in the concerned enactments such as EPF/ESI Acts. Importantly, such a condition (i.e., depositing the amount on or before the due date) has not been enacted in relation to the employer s contribution (i.e., Section 36(1)(iv)). 33. The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under Section 36(1)(va) differently from those under Section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, employers contribution ) is described as sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund . However, the phraseology of Section 36(1)(va) differs from Section 36(1)(iv). It enacts that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. The essential character of an employees contribution, i.e., that it is part of the employees income, held in trust by the employer is underlined by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head profits and gains of business or profession it will be assessed under the head income from other sources. XXXXXX 44. There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B, which mandated that unless the amount of employers contribution was deposited with the authorities, the deduction otherwise permissible in law, would not be available. This court was of the opinion that the omission was curative, and that as long as the employer deposited the dues, before filing the return of income tax, the deduction was available. 45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers contribution and employees contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: 15. It is important to note once again that, by Finance Act, 2003, not only the second proviso is deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about an uniformity in tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand vis-a-vis contributions to welfar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... room for equitable considerations. 49. That deductions are to be granted only when the conditions which govern them are strictly complied with. This has been laid down in State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements as follows: 23 . In our view, the provisions of exemption clause should be strictly construed and if the condition under which the exemption was granted stood changed on account of any subsequent event the exemption would not operate. 24. In our view, an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the industrial policy and the exemption notifications. 25. In our view, the failure to comply with the requirements renders the writ petition filed by the respondent liable to be dismissed. While mandatory rule must be strictly observed, substantial compliance might suffice in the case of a directory rule. 26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision was rendered in the context where the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in the context of allowability of deposit of PF/ESI after due date specified in the relevant Act. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the employees contribution deposited after respective due date cannot be allowed as deduction, and, therefore, it would be incorrect to say that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable only in the case of an assessment farmed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In our considered view, the ratio decidendi is equally applicable for the intimation framed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 12. Now coming to the challenge that the impugned adjustment is beyond the powers of the CPC Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act is also not correct. In light of the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra], as mentioned elsewhere, it cannot be stated that the impugned adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the powers of the CPC, Bengaluru. 13. The provisions of section 143(1)(a) read as under: 143(1) Where a return has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the very purpose of the enactment of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act but also defeat the very purpose of the Legislators and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be made redundant because there would be discrimination and chaos, in as much as, those returns which are processed by the CPC would go free even if the employees contribution is deposited after the due date and in some cases the employer may not even deposit the employees contribution and those whose returns have been scrutinized and assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act would have to face the disallowance. 15. This can neither be the intention of the Legislators nor the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be interpreted in such a way so as to create such discrimination amongst the tax payers. Such interpretation amounts to creation of class [tax payer] within the class [tax payer] meaning thereby that those tax payers who are assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act would have to face disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and those tax payers who have been processed and intimated u/s 143(1) of the Act would go scot- free even if there is delay in deposit of contribution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
