TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) relied upon to the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 as well as section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act and held that the contribution to PF and ESI is up to the due date provided in the respective statement is allowable deduction and not up to due date of filing of return. (ii) CIT(A) has also referred the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B which have been amended to this extent by inserting explanation 2 by the Finance Act 2021, produced as under : "[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;]." The enactmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Relevant Acts permit the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income Tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinay Cement (supra). 3. The assessee derives income from business. Return of income was e-filed on 25.10.2018 showing a total income of Rs. 37,13,420/-. In the intimation under Section 143(1), the Assessing Officer determined the total income at Rs. 60,17,087/- after disallowance of Rs. 23,03,667/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heard. The assessee challenged the action of the CPC in invoking provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act based on the Audit Report. The assessee submitted that the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. S.V. Engineering Constructions India (P) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.130/Viz/2021) has categorically held that the issue on account of late payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Corporation is debatable in nature and is outside the purview of Section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee further relied upon the following decisions wherein it is held that in case of debatable issues, the assessee will get the benefit of the decisions which are in the favour of assessee: * Bajaj Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as Employees State Insurance Act. The Ld. D.R. submitted that these statues are beneficial legislation and the due date should be adhered to. As regards various decisions cited by the assessee, the Ld. D.R. submitted that these decisions are contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.) holding that employees' contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) deposited beyond the due date prescribed u/s.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be eligible for deduction u/s. 43B of the Act even after deposited before the due date of filing of tax ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue date means the statutory due date given under the specific Statute. This amendment/insertion is not clarificatory in nature and therefore not retrospective as there is clear mention in the Finance Act that this explanation will come w.e.f. 01.04.2021, thus it will be applicable to A.Y. 2021-22 and subsequent A.Ys. The assessee's appeal is of 2018-19 which is prior to this explanation. The reliance of the Ld. D.R. upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh (supra) in fact supports the assessee's case and clearly set out that when there is specific effective date given by the Act, the amendment/Insertion/deletion will be effective from that date itself and if there is no mention of retrospective word then it will not....