TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eparate orders dated 21-09-2021, 07-09-2021, 25-09-2021 and 23-09-2021 passed by the respective Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which in turn arise out of processing of return of income u/s. 154/143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the 'Act') by the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CPC, Bengaluru ( in short the AO) on 19-12-2019, Assessing Officer, DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru on 16-10-2019, Assessing Officer, Assistant Director of Income-tax, CPC, Bengaluru on 14-07-2020 and Assessing Officer, Assistant Director of Income-tax, CPC, Bengaluru on 05-09-2020 for the A.Ys 2018-19 and 2019-20, whereby a sum of Rs. 4,84,710/- towards ESI/PF, R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act but paid before the due date of filing income tax return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Relevant extracts from the Tax Audit Report (TAR) have been placed on record to demonstrate deposit of these amounts before the due date of filing of return. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, DCIT, CPC. Bangalore, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, The ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of assessee and various case laws available in his order dismissed the appeal of assessee by confirming the said disallowance as made by the ld.AO. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. None appeared on be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said disallowance and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal of assessee by confirming the said disallowance. 10. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the issue in hand is covered in favour of assessee by the said order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Calcutta in the case of Vijay Shree Ltd, ITA No. 245 of 2011(G.A No.2607 of 2011), dt. 12.8.2015 and order dt. 17-11-021 of this Tribunal in the case of Lumino Industries (supra). Relevant findings of the said order of the Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:- "17. Have heard both the parties. We note that the Finance Bill, 2021 has brought in an amendment which disallows the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of determining the date under this clause. For ready reference, we produce the Explanation-2 to Section 36(1)(va) as under: "Section 36(1)(va) Explnation-2-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the 'due date' under this clause'. 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about the applicability of Section 43B in respect of belated payment of employees' contribution. In order to test whether the amendment brought in later is retrospective or not one has to apply the test as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Snowtex Investment Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n holding otherwise. So till AY 2021-22, the Jurisdictional High Court's view in favour of assessee will hold good and is binding on us. As discussed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) which was in favor of revenue has not considered the decision of the Co-ordinate Division Bench decision in M/s Aimil Ltd.(supra) which is in favour of assessee. So we note that later decision of the Delhi/Hyderabad Tribunal have followed the decision favouring assessee in the light of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court decision in M/s Vegetable Products (supra). In the light of the aforesaid decision and relying on the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s S....