TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jaipur bench) on this issue in favour of the assessee. 4.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 02 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application dated 02-02-2022 praying therein for condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee had tried to file appeal application on 29-12-2021 on ITAT GOV.IN Efiling Website but due to error the assessee could not file the appeal on 29-12- 2021 in ITAT website. The assessee further submitted that he got success in filing the appeal on 30-12-2021 in ITAT Website and thus submitted the hard copy to ITAT office on 31-12-2021. Hence, the delay occurred due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee. The assessee further submitted that there was no malafide or deliberate intention in filing the present appeal. Thus assessee prayed for condonation of delay of 02 days in late filing the appeal which is beyond his control. 4.1 The ld. DR during the course of hearing objected to the assessee's application for condonation of delay. 4.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee has made efforts to file the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 6.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ''6.3.27 In view of the foregoing discussion and the prevailing position of the law applicable on this contentious issue, including clarificatory amendment of the provisions of the statute by the Finance Act, 2021, I find that the addition of Rs. 7,89,468/- made by the AO u/s 2(24(x) of the Act r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution to the PF and ESI which was not credited to the employees account by the due date stipulated under the respective law/ rules, has been correctly made by the AO and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the entire addition of Rs. 7,89,468/- made by the AO is confirmed. Therefore, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. 7.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee against order/intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2019-20 is dismissed.'' 6.2 During the course of hearing the ld.AR of the assessee filed the written submission contending that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has erred in sustaining the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 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 legi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ACIT (supra) wherein it has held as under:- "7. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before 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....