TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture incurred for the purposes of business and are to be allowed, irrespective of the time frame, provided deposited before the filing of the tax return, the disallowance be deleted. 3. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as interpreted by the Apex Court, time and again, it would be found that the contribution to EPF & ESIC are allowable whenever paid but before the filing of the income tax return, the order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary of the decision of the Apex Court, be quashed and the disallowance/addition made be deleted. 2. The brief facts of the case, for Assessment Year 2018-19, are that the assessee filed its return of income 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 6,61,12,162/- for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs. 3,38,882/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC and for Assessment Year 2019-20, the assessee filed its return on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 8,32,94,630/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs. 8,19,475/- unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearly is beyond the prescribed date of deposit as applicable under the relevant section of the I.T. Act. Further, there is no dispute between the parties that the deposits were made before the filing of return of income for the relevant assessment year. 7. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of 'Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT' (supra) has dealt with a similar issue and after taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd.' (supra), has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, by holding as under: "16. Learned counsel for Assessee argued that the issue in question is covered by Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd., (2009) 319 ITR 306, but both learned counsels appearing for rival parties admitted that even after the aforesaid judgment, various High Courts have taken divergent views on the question, whether Section 43B can be read alongwith Section 36(1)(va) or both have independent, distinct and separate field of operation. In this back drop, we find it appropriate, first, to examine judgments of various High Courts which have been r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rat High Court referred to Section 2(24)(x) and found that any sum received by Assessee (employer) from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under Act, 1948, or any other fund for welfare of such employees, constitutes income. However, Section 36 of Act 1961 provides for deduction in computing income referred to in Section 28. The relevant provision of Section 36 applicable to the case before Gujarat High Court was Section 36(1)(va) with which we are also concerned. It entitles an Assessee for deduction in computing income referred to in Section 28 with respect to any sum received by Assessee (employer) from his employees to which Section 2(24)(x) apply, if such sum is credited by Assessee to employees accounts in the relevant fund before due date i.e. date prescribed in the relevant statute applicable to the concerned fund. Court also noticed that Section 43B is in respect to certain deductions and applies only on actual payment. It held that amendment was made by deletion of Second Proviso of Section 43B only, but no corresponding amendment was made under Section 36(1)(va). It said: "It is required to be noted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sport Corporation (supra) and this occasion came in Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 366 ITR 408. Dispute relates to A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee filed Return on 26.09.2008. Return was processed under Section 143(1) and thereafter on scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Assessing Officer completed assessment by order dated 24.12.2010 under Section 143(3) disallowing Rs. 12,51,737/- under Section 36(1)(va) and also disallowing Rs. 1,04,621/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In appeal, CIT (A) reversed findings of Assessing Officer but on appeal preferred by Revenue, Tribunal restored Assessing Officer's order and that is how matter came to Karnataka High Court. The question up for consideration was, "whether Tribunal was justified in affirming finding of Assessing Officer and denying Assessee's claim of deduction of employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by appellant in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961." The Assessee's counsel relied on earlier judgment of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Spectrum Consultants P. Ltd., (2014) 2 ITROL 622 whil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and dissented with the otherwise judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2014) 363 ITR 70, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Spectrum Consultants India P. Ltd. (supra) and Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., (2014) 368 ITR 749. 25. Before following a particular view when there is divergence in views of different High Courts, we find it appropriate to examine Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) to find out whether it can be confined only in respect to employers' contribution or is applicable to both 'contributions', whether by employer or employee. 26. The question, whether benefit under Section 43B, as a result of amendment of Finance Act, 2003, is retrospective or not, came to be considered in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra). Court considered the intent, purpose and object in the historical back drop of insertion of Section 43B and its progress by way of various amendments. Referring Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of a company did not always tally with the due dates under Provident Fund Act, Municipal Corporation Act (Octroi) and other Tax laws. Therefore, by way of First Proviso, an incentive/relaxation was sought to be given in respect of tax, duty, cess or fee by explicitly stating that if such tax duty cess or fee is paid before the date of filing of the return under Act 1961, Assessee would then be entitled to deduction. This relaxation/incentive was restricted only to tax, duty, cess and fee. It did not apply to contributions to labour welfare funds. The reason appears to be that the employer should not sit on the collected contributions and deprive workmen of the rightful benefits under social welfare legislations by delaying payment of contributions to the welfare funds. But when implementation problems were pointed out for different due dates, uniformity was brought about in first proviso by Finance Act, 2003. Hence, amendment made by Finance Act 2003 in Section 43B is retrospective, being curative in nature and apply from 01.04.1988. In the result when contribution had been paid, prior to filing of return under Section 139(1), Assessee/employer would be entitled for deduction and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in by the Finance Act, 2021, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding the amendment to be applicable from April 2021 only. The relevant portion of the findings of the Tribunal is reproduced below: "There is a recent amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by Finance Act, 2021, wherein Explanation 2 was inserted, which reads as under: "36(1)(va) .............. ................................. Explanation 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 purposes of determining the 'due date' under this clause;" Correspondingly, there was an amendment to Section 43B of the 1961 Act by Finance Act, 2021, wherein Explanation 5 was inserted, which reads as under: "43B.................... ............................ Explanations-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contribution received by employer which was deposited late by employer beyond the time stipulated u/s. 36(1)(va), but before the due date as prescribed for filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the 1961 Act, and there cannot be a class different now at this stage where the deduction is to be denied on the ground of strict interpretation of the provisions of Section 36(1)(va), unless the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 is made specifically applicable retrospectively from the date of insertion of the provision or any other specified earlier date in the Finance Act, rather on the other hand, the Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2021 has specifically made this amendment applicable from 01.04.2021 and specified that the same shall be made applicable from assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. We are presently concerned with ay: 2005-06. The relevant clause to Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2021 is reproduced hereunder: "Rationalisation of various Provisions Payment by employer of employee contribution to a fund on or before due date Clause (24) of section 2 of the Act provides an inclusive definition of the income. Sub-clause (x) to the said....