2022 (8) TMI 1268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "Ground 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering in his order ground No. 1 of Form 35 being disallowance under section 43B of Rs. 1044320 despite the payments being made before due date of filing of return and proof submitted thereof. Ground 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in:- a. holding that the employee's contribution for PF and ESI of Rs. 581314 are allowable as deduction only when deposited by the employer within the due dates prescribed under relevant Act or funds; b. holding that for the relevant year, the provisions of section 43B of the Act were not applicable to the employees share of contribution of the ESI & PF. c. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee is aggrieved that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering ground 1 of Form 35 pertaining to disallowance under section 43B of Rs. 10,44,320/- despite the payments being made before due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) and the proof of which was submitted by the assessee. Before, the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had stated that there was an error in form 3CA CD of the assessee wherein the amounts specified under section 43B were wrongly mentioned in 26(i)(B)(b) of Form 3CD instead of mentioning the same in 26(i)(B)(a), which was paid before the due date of filing the returns under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee submitted that the same was clarified on the e-filing site to the proposed adjustmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala). 7. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that the issue relating to delayed deposit of EPF/ESI has already been dealt with by various Hon'ble High Courts including the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom) wherein it was held that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) that the amendment to section 43B of I.T. Act was applicable to both employer's as well as employees' contribution. Furthermore, the amendment brought out in the Finance Act, 2021 was only prospective and not retrospective thereby....