TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That in the facts of the case and as per law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions/disallowances made by CPC in the returned income while processing the ITR under section 143(1) of the IT Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in the facts and in law in sustaining the addition/disallowances of Rs. 18,06,399/- for the PF and ESIC of the employees which was deposited after the due date under the PF and ESIC Act but before within the due date for filing of the Income Tax Return under section 139(1) of the IT Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in the facts and in law in sustaining the addition/disallowances of Rs. 18,06,399/- as it is against the dictum la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time specified under the respective acts but it was deposited before the due date for filing ITR. Against this disallowance Appellant Company preferred appeal before CIT (Appeals). The Appellant Company before CIT(A) contended that this issue is settled in favour of Appellant Company by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Limited in ITA No. 1063 of 2006 dated 23.12.2009. The CIT(A) observed that there are decisions of various High Courts for and against the Appellant Company and finally held that the insertion of Explanation 2 inserted by Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(l)(va) of the Act is clarificatory, which clarify that the definition of 'due date' as per Section 43B o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... retrospectively. In view of the aforesaid position, the PF/ESIC Contribution of employees deposited after the due date specified in PF/ESIC Act but before the due date of filing the Return of Income which has been disallowed by CPC Bangalore and upheld by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) should be deleted and the appeal of the Appellant Company may be allowed". 4. Learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The issue in this appeal is regarding disallowance of Rs. 18,06,399/- on account of delay in depositing of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC. Learned CIT(A) disallowed the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 983/2018. 7. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi), has held as under: "If the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. In so far as the Income-tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of Rs. 12,50,929/- for the PF and ESIC of the employees which was deposited after the due date under the PF and ESIC Act but before within the due date for filing of the Income Tax Return under section 139(1) of the IT Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in the facts and in law in sustaining the addition/disallowances of Rs. 12,50,929/- as it is against the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of PCIT Vs. pro Interactive Service India Pvt. Ltd., ITA no. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018 and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (Delhi High Court) 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in the facts and in law in sustaining the addition/disallowances of Rs. 12,50,929/- by holding that the amendment and explanation i....