2021 (9) TMI 209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the first instance we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 133/Chd/2021 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer who had made addition of Rs. 5,63,720/- on account of late payment of EPF and ESI, though the amount was duly paid before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1), hence it is an allowable expenditure as per the judgment of Honorable SC in the case of Pr. CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 84 taxmnn.com 185. 2. That in the fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessee deposited the impugned amount before filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act, therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified.  Reliance was placed on the following case laws : * Pr. CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 185 (SC) * CIT, Shimla Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327 (HP-HC) * M/s Gilco Exports Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Chandigarh ITA No. 1244/Chd/2018 (Chd-Tri)order dated 31/07/2019 * New Time Contractors and Builder(P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1) Chandigarh ITA No. 1243/Chandi/201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mla Embroydery Mills (p.) Ltd.(supra) held as under: "The second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, omitted by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from April 1, 2004, was clarificatory in nature and was to operate retrospectively. Thus, the assessee, for the assessment year 2003-04, was entitled to deduction in respect of the employer's and employees' contributions to the employees' State Insurance and provident fund as the contributions had been deposited prior to the filing of the return under section 139(1)."    So respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, the impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. C....