TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. As a lead case, for deciding the appeals, we take ITA No. 229/JP/2021 for the A.Y. 2018-19 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee. "Ground No. 1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,70,396/- made by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1), on account of disallowance of Employee's contribution of ESI and PF which wa3 paid to the said funds' accounts late but before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1). Ground No. 2: The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred on facts and in law in not following the binding decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court where consistent view has been taken that even employee's contribution of PF 8s ESI can be deposited before due date of filing of return u/s 139(1). Therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is against the judicial discipline and deserves to be quashed. Ground No. 3: The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,70,396/- made by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, holding that the recent am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eyond the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act. The ld. AR has also submitted that identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2019-20 in ITA No. 138/JP/2021 order dated 11/11/2021 and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. It was accordingly submitted that the adjustment so made by the CPC and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC may be directed to be deleted. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that as per details furnished in the tax audit report, the payment of employee's contribution of PF/ESI amounting to Rs. 2,70,396/- was not made within the prescribed due date U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act and since these amount were not disallowed in the return of income filed by the assessee, the variance between the tax audit report and ITR has been duly flagged by the CPC in the computerized processing and disallowance U/s 143(1)(a)(iv) on the basis of fact furnished by the assessee was made which clearly fails within ambit of prima facie adjustment to be carried out U/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein the explanation to Section 36(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 14. The issue is no more res integra in light of series of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court starting from CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) and subsequent decisions. 15. In this regard, we may refer to the initial decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur wherein the Hon'ble High Court after extensively examining the matter and considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts has decided the matter in favour of the assessee. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to held as under: "20. On perusal of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43(B)(b) and analyzing the judgments rendered, in our view as well, it is clear that the legislature brought in the statute Section 43(B)(b) to curb the activities of such tax payers who did not discharge their statutory liability of payment of dues, as aforesaid; and rightly so as on the one 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tire amount as also to adduce evidence regarding such deposit on or before the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act. 23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act." 16. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), and CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited (supra). In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 17. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court but has decided to follow the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi, Madras, Gujarat and Kerala High Courts. Given the divergent views....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment to the provisions to section 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, has to be construed as retrospective and applicable for the period prior to 01.04.2021 also. On this aspect, we find that the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless the legislature specifically says so. In the decisions referred to by us in the earlier paragraph of this order on identical issue the tribunal has taken a view that the aforesaid amendment is applicable only prospectively i.e., from 1.4.2021. We are therefore of the view that the impugned additions made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in both the Assessment Years deserves to be deleted." 10. In light of the aforesaid....