TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e's contribution is linked to payment before the due dates specified in the respective Acts and employer's contribution is linked to the payment before the prescribed due date for filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. It was held that result of any failure to pay within the prescribed dates also leads to different results. In the case of employee's contribution, any failure to pay within the prescribed due date under the respective PF Act or Scheme will result in negating employer's claim for deduction permanently forever u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. On the other hand, delay in payment of employer's contribution is visited with deferment of deduction on payment basis u/s.43B of the Act and is therefore not lost totall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is bad in law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.The learned Authorities below erred in mechanically disallowing the Employees Contribution to Provident Fund u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the same is remitted before the due date for filing the Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. The learned authorities below erred in ignoring the fact that as long as the contribution is made to the PF authorities before the due date for filing of the Income Tax Returns the same is required to be allowed. This view has been taken by jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka. 6. There is plethora of decisions by the honorable Jurisdictional High Court. The NFAC is bound by the decision of Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed CIT(A) is bad in law. 10. The appellant relies on the ratio of recent decision of Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad [2021] 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad Trib.), where for the assessment year 2018-19 employee's contribution to ESI/PF has been deposited by assessee employer before due date of filing section 139(1) return but after due date prescribed in corresponding statutes and Assessing Officer added said amount to income of assessee as per provisions of section 36(1) (va), it was held that, since amendments in section 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect applies w.e.f. 1-4-2021 only, impugned disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, without appreciating the fact that the same is remitted before the due date for filing the Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. The learned authorities below erred in ignoring the fact that as long as the contribution is made to the PF authorities before the due date for filing of the Income Tax Returns the same is required to be allowed. This view has been taken by jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka. 6. There is plethora of decisions by the honorable Jurisdictional High Court. The NFAC is bound by the decision of Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court as the Assessee is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Karnataka, the learned authorities below erred in not following the Judgement relied on by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ward 3(1), Hyderabad [2021] 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad Trib.), where for the assessment year 2019-20 employee's contribution to ESI/PF has been deposited by assessee employer before due date of filing section 139(1) return but after due date prescribed in corresponding statutes and Assessing Officer added said amount to income of assessee as per provisions of section 36(1) (va), it was held that, since amendments in section 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect applies w.e.f. 1-4-2021 only, impugned disallowance for assessment year 2019-20 was not sustainable. 11. Appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest u/s 234 of the Act from the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act and that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the same. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT-1 reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). The CIT(A) noticed the difference between the employees' contribution and the employer's contribution and held insofar as the employees' contribution to ESI and PF, the same need to be remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
