TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s erred in deleting the addition made in respect of employees contribution towards PF/ESI. 2. Brief facts leading the case of the assessee are that on verification of the details submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that there was a delay in remittance of Provident Fund and ESI for the assessment year under consideration of Rs..2,97,81,537/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the total amount of Rs..2,97,81,537/- under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] and brought to tax. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the ground raised by the assessee by following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequently, the Assessing Officer noticed that there was escapement of income and hence reopened the assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. While completing the re-assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses claimed by way of Employee's contribution to PF and ESI holding that the assessee had not paid the employee's contribution of PF and ESI within the due dates specified under the respective Act. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the reopening as well as the disallowance. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the order of the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amil Ltd. (321 ITR 508) held that even the employees contribution to provident fund is to be allowed as deduction if it is paid within due date for filing of return. While holding so, the Tribunal observed as under:- "6. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below, as well as the judgments/decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is an un-disputed fact that there has been delay in remittance of employees contribution of ESI and Provident Fund in both the AYs i.e., 2008-09 & 2009-10. It is equally un-disputed that the assessee has deposited the amount towards employees cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. 6. In the present case....