AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of filing of the return, the deduction claimed being incurred for the purpose of business, is allowable, the same be allowed. 3. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the decisions of the Apex Court and also the several other decisions on the subject wherein the issue regarding delayed payment of employees contribution to PF/ESI has been crystalized and has been held, that the same is allowable provided the same is deposited before the filing of the return, 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 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,67,74,48/- for Assessment Year 2018-19. The return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, who disallowed the PF and ESI, amounting to Rs.3,22,274/-, observing that the same was deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing of the return. The assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the I.T. Act with the CPC, requesting that since the PF and ESI were deposited before the due date of filing of the return, they should be allowed as deduction. However, the CPC rejected the rectification applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ld. D.R. submitted that an amendment was brought in by the Finance Act, 2021, which is clarificatory or of curative nature, and has retrospective effect, and therefore, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 6. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that with regard to the grievance of the assessee against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the CPC relating to employees' contribution towards PF & ESI, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the date of deposit of PF & ESI, which 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 coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and confirmed order passed by CIT(A). That is how matter came before High Court in appeal. Court considered following question, posed in para 7.01, reads as under: "Short question which is posed for consideration of this court is with respect to the disallowance of the amount being the employees' contribution to the PF account/ESI contribution which admittedly which the concerned assessee did not deposit with the PF Department/ESI Department within due date under the PF Act and/or the ESI Act." 18. Gujarat 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d., (2014) 366 ITR 167, Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Nipso Ployfabriks Ltd., (2013) 350 ITR 327 and Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs Sabri Enterprises, (2008) 298 ITR 141. 21. Karnataka High Court had an occasion to consider, whether it should dissent with the view taken in the earlier judgments and follow the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujrat State Road Transport 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts own earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Rai Agro Industries Ltd., (2011) 334 ITR 122, to hold that Section 43B shall apply to both 'contributions' i.e. employers' and employees'. 24. Kerala High Court in recent judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Merchem Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 443, has followed the decision of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on the mercantile system of accounting. At the same time, Section 43B made it mandatory for the Department to grant deduction in computing income under Section 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess etc. is actually paid. Parliament took cognizance of the fact that accounting year 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ective in nature and not retrospective. 11. The Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of 'JCIT, Circle-2, Allahabad vs. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.' in I.T.A. No.147 & 148/Alld/2016, vide order dated 12.8.2021, after taking into account the aforesaid amendment brought 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 hereb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court has decided this issue in favour of Revenue) situated in the States where Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided this issue in favour of tax-payers, have already been allowed the deduction towards employee 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 ....