Tribunal allows appeal, disallows unjustified additions, emphasizes timely contributions.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) were not justified. The impugned additions were deleted, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that contributions made before the filing of the return, even if after the due date, should not be disallowed under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act, considering the non-retrospective nature of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and factual correctness of the order passed by the CIT(A).
2. Legality of the intimation order passed under section 143(1) by the AO, CPC, Bangalore.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the intimation order.
4. Retrospective application of amendments in law.
5. Deduction of genuine and legitimate business expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Factual Correctness of CIT(A)'s Order:
The appellant contended that the order of the CIT(A) was contrary to the law and facts of the case. The primary grievance was the disallowance of Rs. 22,96,603/- towards EPF and ESI payments, which the appellant argued was contrary to statutory provisions and well-settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court.

2. Legality of the Intimation Order under Section 143(1):
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation order passed under section 143(1), which disallowed the EPF and ESI payments. The appellant emphasized that these payments were made before filing the return of income under section 139(1), thus should not be disallowed. The Tribunal referenced the ITAT Jodhpur Bench case of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Bangalore, which supported the appellant's position.

3. Jurisdiction and Procedural Propriety of the Intimation Order:
The appellant contended that the intimation order was issued without proper jurisdiction and did not provide a reasonable opportunity for being heard. The Tribunal observed that the issue of late deposit of PF & ESI contributions had been consistently adjudicated in favor of the assessee by various ITAT benches, provided the deposits were made before filing the return under section 139(1).

4. Retrospective Application of Amendments in Law:
The appellant argued against the retrospective application of amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, which were effective from 1.4.2021. The Tribunal cited multiple cases, including Harendra Nath Biswas vs. DCIT Kolkata and Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ITO, where it was held that amendments should not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was not sustainable if the contributions were made before filing the return of income, even if after the due date under the respective statutes.

5. Deduction of Genuine and Legitimate Business Expenditure under Section 37:
The appellant also raised an alternative ground for the deduction of genuine and legitimate business expenditure under section 37. However, since the primary issue was resolved in favor of the appellant, this ground became redundant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and precedents, concluded that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were not justified. The Tribunal deleted the impugned additions, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The judgment emphasized that contributions made before the filing of the return, although after the due date, should not be disallowed under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act, especially considering the non-retrospective nature of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

---