2021 (11) TMI 378 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee in tax appeal, citing non-retrospective law.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and allowing the appeal. The Tribunal ... Delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI - amount was deposited before the due date of the filing of the return - HELD THAT:- As relying on HARENDRA NATH BISWAS [2021 (7) TMI 942 - ITAT KOLKATA] we do not accept the Ld. CIT(A)'s stand denying the claim of assessee since assessee delayed the employees contribution of EPF & ESI fund and as per the binding decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Vijayshree Ltd.[2011 (4) TMI 63 - ITAT KOLKATA] u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act since assessee had deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income. Therefore, the assessee succeeds and we allow the appeal of the assessee. Issues:1. Confirmation of order by CIT(A) from Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore.2. Addition of employee's contribution to Provident Fund under section 36(va) and section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act.3. Consideration of judgments by Jurisdictional Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. Delay in depositing employee's contribution to Provident Fund/ESI fund.5. Appellant's request to submit further/additional grounds of appeal.Issue 1: Confirmation of order by CIT(A) from Centralized Processing Centre, BangaloreThe appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) from the Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore. The appellant contested the order on the grounds of being bad in law and factually incorrect.Issue 2: Addition of employee's contribution to Provident FundThe appellant challenged the addition of a specific sum in relation to employee's contribution to Provident Fund under section 36(va) and section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the amount was deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return and should have been allowable under section 43B of the Income Tax Act.Issue 3: Consideration of judgments by Jurisdictional Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Supreme CourtThe appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in not considering judgments passed by the Jurisdictional Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases favoring the assessee. The appellant sought the application of these judgments to support their case.Issue 4: Delay in depositing employee's contribution to Provident Fund/ESI fundThe appellant highlighted a delay in depositing employee's and employer's contributions to the Provident Fund/ESI fund. However, the appellant emphasized that the amount was deposited before the due date of filing the return. The appellant relied on relevant case law to support their argument.Issue 5: Appellant's request for additional grounds of appealThe appellant requested the opportunity to submit further or additional grounds of appeal either before or during the appeal hearing.In a detailed analysis, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee based on the legal precedents cited, including decisions from the Jurisdictional Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the relevant assessment year predated the insertion of Explanation-5 to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, and therefore, the law laid down by the Calcutta High Court applied. The Tribunal emphasized that the Explanation-5 was not made retrospective, supporting the assessee's position. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed, leading to the deletion of the impugned addition made by the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded by allowing the appeal of the assessee, based on the legal principles and precedents discussed in the judgment.