TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows appeals, rejects disallowances on EPF & ESI contributions pre-deposit.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, deleting the disallowances of contributions towards EPF and ESI. The disallowances made by the ... Late deposit of employees share of PF & ESI which were deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing of return of income - AO made the additions of the impugned amounts for the reasons that the assessee did not deposit the amounts of employees contribution as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- As decided in RAJA RAM VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 3 AND SANCHI MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 5 (2) , CHANDIGARH [2021 (11) TMI 370 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] assessee deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1). Impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of deposits of employees contribution of ESI & PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Rs. 3,41,798 on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Rs. 3,41,798 on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The primary grievance of the assessees is the disallowance of Rs. 3,41,798 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) due to late payments towards Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI) contributions. The contributions were deposited beyond the due date as per the PF and ESIC Act but before the due date for filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] sustained this disallowance.The assessees argued that the issue is covered by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench's common order dated 20/10/2021 in ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Chd/2021 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19. The Tribunal had held that contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) should not be disallowed under section 36(1)(va).The Tribunal considered various precedents, including the ITAT Jodhpur Bench's order dated 28.09.2021 in ITA Nos. 71 & 72/Jodh/2021, where it was held that contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed as deductions. The Tribunal also referenced the Kolkata ITAT's decision in the case of Harendra Nath Biswas vs. DCIT, ITA No. 186/Kol/2021, which followed the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's ruling in Vijayshree Ltd., stating that the amendment to section 43(B) by the Finance Act, 2003, was curative and should be applied retrospectively.Further, the Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2021, introduced Explanation 5 to section 36(1)(va), effective from 01.04.2021, which clarified that contributions must be paid within the due dates specified under the respective Acts. However, this amendment was not retrospective and hence not applicable for the assessment years under consideration.The Tribunal also referenced decisions from various High Courts, including the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, which consistently held that contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income should not be disallowed. The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdictional High Court's decisions are binding and must be followed.Based on these precedents and the binding nature of the jurisdictional High Court's rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowances made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A) were not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the disallowances in all the appeals.Conclusion:The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the disallowances of contributions towards EPF and ESI made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted, as the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal followed the binding precedents set by various High Courts and earlier orders of the ITAT.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
