TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of EPF/ESIC due, which were paid beyond the due date but before the filing of the return of income. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act but the 154 application was rejected. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC against the rejection of the 154 application and the assessee's appeal was also rejected. Similarly, in assessment year 2019-20, the return of income was filed declaring income of Rs. 7,31,450/- which was processed by the CPC, Banglore and the income was assessed at Rs. 8,44,938/- u/s 143(1) of the Act after making an adjustment of Rs. 1,13,490/- being EPF and ESI payments which were deposited beyond the prescribed date but before the filing of the return of income. In this year also, the application moved by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act was dismissed and subsequently the assessee's appeal against the rejection of 154 application was also dismissed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 3.1 Against the rejection of the above mentioned 154 applications, the assessee has now approached this Tribunal and has challenged the impugned action of the NFAC. 4.0 The Ld. counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated above in Para 5. For a ready reference, we also reproduce relevant observations of the various Benches as under:- 6.2 In the case of Harendra Nath Biswas vs DCIT Koltaka, ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20, similar issue has been decided vide order dated 16.7.2021 by the ITAT 'B' Bench, Kolkata. The Relevant findings have been given in para 4 of the said order, which read as under;- "4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. First of all we do not countenance this action of the Ld. CIT(A) for the simple reason that the Explanation 5 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021 and relevant assessment year before us is AY 2019-20. Therefore the law laid down by the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court will apply and since this Explanation-5 has not been made retrospectively. So we are inclined to follow the same and we reproduce the order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vijayshree Ltd. supra wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has taken note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. reported in 390 ITR 306. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in Vijayshree Ltd. supra is reproduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide order dt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- "2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs. 1,09,343/- and Rs. 3,52,622/-, the assessee's and revenue's stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue's case is supported by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e hand claim was being made under Section 36 for allowing the deduction of GPF, CPF, ESI etc. as per the system followed by the assessees in claiming the deduction i.e. accrual basis and the same was being allowed, as the liability did exist but the said amount though claimed as a deduction was not being deposited even after lapse of several years. Therefore, to put a check on the said claims/deductions having been made, the said provision was brought in to curb the said activities and which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. (supra). 21. A conjoint reading of the proviso to Section 43-B which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 made effective from 01/04/1988, the words numbered as clause (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further envisage that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date admissible at the t....