TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anjeev Kumar CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 25/09/2021 2. Since the issues involved are common in all the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We shall first deal with ITA No. 138/Asr/2021 in case of M/s. Amar Coach Builders for the A.Y. 2019-20. 4. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal of the assessee is belated by 10 days and the defect memo was issued. In response to the said defect memo, the assessee vide application dt. 10/11/2021 submitted as under: APPLICATION FOR REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY: The assessee respectfully submits as under:- 1. The appeal was due to be held on 30.10.2021, it has been filed on 09.11.2021, therefore, delay of 10 days is prayed to be condoned. 2. The appeal could not be filed earlier due to technical faults in the website and the assessee was trying but was not able to file appeal earlier online due to technical glitches on the website, so the appeal is i. That in the latest order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application 21 of 2022, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal. 11. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Chd/2021 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar and in the case of Sanchi Management Services Private Limited Vs. ITO, Chandigarh in ITA No. 190/Chd/2021 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 12. In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the aforesaid referred to cases, wherein one of us is author of the order dated 20/10/2021. In the said order it has been held vide paras ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-07 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A). The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the deletion of the addition by the AO on account of Employees 'Contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol. 390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988. Such being the positi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poration (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iii) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore." 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Bangalore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- "13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee as part of its return of income, it is noted that the assessee has deposited the employees's contribution towards ESI and PF well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) and the last of such deposits were made on 16.04.2019 whereas due date of filing the return for the impugned assessment year 2019-20 was 31.10.2019 and the return of income was also filed on the said date. Admittedly and undisputedly, the employees's contribution to ESI and PF w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g return of the income under Section 139 of the Act in respect of the previous year can be claimed by the assessee for deduction out of their gross total income. It is also clear that Sec. 43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec. 36(1) (va) and if read in isolation Sec. 43B would become obsolete. Accordingly, contention of counsel for the revenue is not tenable for the reason aforesaid that deductions out of the gross income for payment of tax at the time of submission of return under Section 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of PF or other contribution referred to in Clause (b) are paid within the due date under the respective enactments by the assessees and not under the due date of filing of return. 22. We have already observed that till this provision was brought in as the due amounts on one pretext or the other were not being deposited by the assessees though substantial benefits had been obtained by them in the shape of the amount having been claimed as a deduction but the said amounts were not deposited. It is pertinent to note that the respective Act such as PF etc. also provides that the amounts can be paid la....