TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 on the following grounds: "1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF Rs. 1,39,11,327/- ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF ESI/PF BUT DEPOSITED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT DISPUTES THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMMEND OR MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL." 2. The relevant facts relatable to the issue are that disallowance was made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru in the return processed u/s. 143(1) for late payment of ESI/PF etc. as per specific Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the First Appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein Explanation-5 has been inserted. It was submitted that the said amendment has been inserted w.e.f. assessment year 2021-22 onwards and have to be read prospectively and not retrospectively and various Benches of the Tribunal has been taking a consistent view in this regard and our reference was drawn to the decision of the Chandigarh Benches of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Czars Faucets Limited Vs. CPC in ITA No. 255/Chd/2021 dated 02.11.2021 wherein the relevant findings read as under: "4. We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen that in the present appeal, the assessee has only assailed the disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of CIT Vs. Nuchem Limited ITA 323 of 2009 and CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 we are of the view that the additions cannot be made or sustained on the strength of the amendment effected by Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act as the legal position thereon is very clear. The departmental stand that it is clarificatory in nature has consistently been rejected. Thus, in the face of the clear legal position, as set out hereinabove, we find that the claim of the assessee is to be allowed in the year under consideration which is 2018-19 assessment year. The impugned order, accordingly, is set aside and the AO is directed to delete the disallowance. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Said order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdingly supported the order of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that employees' contribution to ESI and PF had been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. We further note that though the Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court but has decided to follow the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Given the divergent views taken by the various High Courts and in the instant case, the fact that the jurisdiction over the Assessing officer lies with the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in our consi....