2022 (4) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru on 03/09/2019 for the A.Y under consideration, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,21,216/- was disallowed/added back on account of failure of the assessee-appellant on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to ESI/PF. 2. It is noticed that the appeal of filed by the assessee is time barred by 10 days. For which COD(Condonation of Delay) filed. After considering the contents therein and hearing the Ld. DR, we condone the delay and appeal is admitted for disposal of the same on material available on record and on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A)(NF AC) has erred in law as well as on facts by confirming the dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal it reveals that the assessee has contested mainly before us the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1,21,216/-- under the head of ESI/PF for delayed payment under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Since this ground goes to the root of the case, hence, we proceed to dispose of the ground no.1 at first. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its e-return of income for the A.Y under consideration, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bangalore on 03-09-2019, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,21,216/- was disallowed/added back on account of failure of the appellant/assessee to deposit the employees contribution to PF/ESI beyond the due date. Admittedly, it was not paid on or before the prescribed due d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 & '19-20 in respect of Lumino Indusries & Ors. Copy of which is available on record. Thus, he prayed before us that the disallowance so made by the ld.AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) kindly be deleted in view of said order of this Tribunal/Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 7. On the other hand, Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. CIT, the Ld. Departmental Representative ( in short, the Ld.DR) has not objected to the factual position of the case. However, he submitted that the ld. AO has rightly disallowed the said disallowance and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by confirming the said disallowance. 8. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the issue i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable as a deduction. We note that by Finance Act, 2021, the provision of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B has been amended to this extend by inserting the Explanation 2 whereby it is clarified that the provision of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose 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 ame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uous terms spells out the intention of Parliament that the amendment shall take effect from 1st April, 2021 and therefore will accordingly apply to Assessment Year 2021-22 and subsequent years. So since the legislative intent is clear, the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 on this issue as discussed is prospective and Ld. CIT(A) erred in 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 not....