TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2017-18, which was paid during the year under consideration but had already been disallowed by the assessee suo motu in assessment year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,06,536/- (inadvertently mentioned in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order as Rs. 3,29,664/-) u/s. 43B rws 36(1) (va) of the I.T Act on account of employee's share of ESI PF deposited before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(1). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,128/- on account of employer share of ESI PF for AY 2017-18 paid during the year which was disallowed in AY 2017-18 and is otherwise allowable in terms of u/s. 43B of the I.T. Act on payment basis. 3. That without prejudice to above ground of appeals, the appellant disputes the quantum of additions/disallowances. 4. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same. 3. Regarding the first issue, the facts which are not disputed in the present case are that the addition had been made in the intimation made to the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w when the payment has actually been made in assessment year 2018-19 i.e. the year under appeal. 4. In his rival submissions, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 5. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, as far as the first ground of assessee's appeal is concerned, 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 8 to 10 in ITA Nos. 191 & 192/Chd/2021 in case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar as under:- 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In the present cases, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the aforesaid referred to case, wherein the undersigned is author of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner 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 position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees' Contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities." In the light of the aforesaid discussion we do not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 which have been collected by the assessee from its employees have thus been deposited well before 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 matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred 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 later on subject to payment of interest and other consequences and to get benefit under the Income Tax Act, an assessee ought to have actually deposited the entire 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 fo....