Tribunal allows appeal, reverses disallowance of employees' PF and ESIC contributions under IT Act

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 47,51,831/- for employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the adjustment made during the return processing under Section 143(1) was legally flawed, citing binding judicial precedents, the prospective nature of the Finance Act, 2021 amendment, and the principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the Assessing Officer's failure to provide specific reasons for rejecting the objections, stressing the quasi-judicial nature of the function.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC under Section 36(1)(va).
2. Non-adherence to judicial precedents by the CIT(A).
3. Prospective nature of the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021.
4. Principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee when two views are possible.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC under Section 36(1)(va):
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 47,51,831/- for employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). The Tribunal referred to the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., where it was observed that payments made after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the income tax return are deductible. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer-CPC did not provide specific reasons for rejecting the assessee's objections, which is a quasi-judicial function requiring a judicious call and specific reasons.

2. Non-adherence to Judicial Precedents by the CIT(A):
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to follow the judicial precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. and the jurisdictional High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. These precedents held that no disallowance should be made if the contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal emphasized that the views expressed by the tax auditor cannot override the binding judicial precedents and that the law laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court must be followed.

3. Prospective Nature of the Amendment Made by Finance Act, 2021:
The assessee contended that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021, which introduced Explanations to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, is prospective in nature and should not apply to the assessment year 2018-19. The Tribunal noted that the amendment is to take effect from 1st April 2021 and should not affect the periods prior to this date. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of coordinate benches holding that the insertion of these explanations is prospective.

4. Principle of Adopting the View Favorable to the Assessee:
The assessee argued that in cases where two views are possible, the one favorable to the assessee should be adopted. The Tribunal reiterated that when the law laid down by the Hon'ble Courts is in favor of the assessee, it must be followed. The Tribunal emphasized that the tax auditor's report is not binding on the assessee and that the correct legal position, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Courts, must prevail.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the impugned adjustment in the course of processing the return under Section 143(1) is vitiated in law and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 47,51,831/-. The Tribunal's decision was based on the binding judicial precedents, the prospective nature of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee. The appeal was allowed, and the adjustment was deleted.

---