Tribunal allows deduction for EPF and ESI contributions, citing Delhi High Court rulings.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions for the respective assessment years. It held that contributions made before the due date of filing the return are allowable deductions, in line with judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the explanatory notes to the Finance Bill 2021. The Tribunal clarified that the amendment by the Finance Bill 2021 was not prospective but explanatory, reinforcing that section 43B never applied to employees' contributions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of increasing income under section 143(1).
2. Disallowance of Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI) under section 143(1)(a).
3. Disallowance of EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) despite deposits made before filing the return under section 139(1).
4. Applicability of the amendment by Finance Bill 2021, whether prospective or retrospective.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Increasing Income Under Section 143(1):
The assessee challenged the action of increasing income by Rs. 18,00,520/- for the assessment year 2018-19 and Rs. 19,30,330/- for the assessment year 2019-20 under section 143(1). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately in the judgment, as the primary focus was on the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions.

2. Disallowance of EPF and ESI Under Section 143(1)(a):
The assessee argued that the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions amounting to Rs. 13,73,715/- for AY 2018-19 and Rs. 16,70,007/- for AY 2019-20 under section 143(1)(a) was outside the scope of this section. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on the procedural aspect of section 143(1)(a) but focused on the substantive issue of whether the contributions were allowable deductions.

3. Disallowance of EPF and ESI Under Section 36(1)(va) Despite Deposits Made Before Filing the Return Under Section 139(1):
The assessee contended that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the filing of the return under section 139(1). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, citing the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., which held that if the employees' contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the return, the employer is entitled to the deduction.

4. Applicability of the Amendment by Finance Bill 2021, Whether Prospective or Retrospective:
The Tribunal extensively analyzed whether the amendment made by the Finance Bill 2021 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is prospective or retrospective. The amendment clarified that the provisions of section 43B do not apply to employees' contributions. The Tribunal noted that the explanatory notes to the Finance Bill 2021 indicated that the amendment was intended to clarify the original legislative intent and was thus explanatory in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the amendment is not prospective but rather clarifies the existing law, reinforcing that section 43B never applied to employees' contributions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the explanatory notes to the Finance Bill 2021, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 13,73,715/- for AY 2018-19 and Rs. 16,70,007/- for AY 2019-20. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the disallowances were deleted, following the principle that contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return are allowable deductions.

---