TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prayed that the Appellate Order passed under section 250 of the Act may please be cancelled/set-aside on this ground alone. 2. GROUND NO. II (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the Learned Asst. Director of Income Tax (CPC) ("the Ld. CPC") in making the addition/disallowance of Rs.91,150/- invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to Employees Provident Fund (EPF) & Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) beyond the due dates under the respective Acts however, the appellant has duly deposited the amount well before the due dates prescribed well supported with the proof of payment of such deposit, hence, disallowance is highly unjustified, unwarranted and it is earnestly requested that the same may please be deleted; 3. (b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring various judicial precedents including that of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal and applying the judgments of non-jurisdictional High Courts thereby making the appellate order as erroneous, bad in law and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enter (CPC), Bengaluru u/s.143(1) of the Act. The CPC while processing the return of income had triggered the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act and disallowed an amount of Rs.91,150/- qua the delayed deposit of the employee's share of contributions towards Provident fund (PF) and Employee's State Insurance (ESI) by the assessee. 3. Assessee holding a conviction that the aforesaid adjustment made by the A.O to its returned income was a mistake that was amenable for rectification, thus, filed an application u/s.154 of the Act which however, was rejected by the A.O vide his order dated 30.01.2020. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s.154 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Assessing Officer u/s.2(24)(x) of the Act, for the reason that the said amount was deposited beyond the stipulated time period that was prescribed under the said Employees Welfare Fund Act. Before us, it was claimed by the Ld. AR, that now when the aforesaid amounts were deposited by the assessee before the "due date" of filing of its return of income for the year under consideration, therefore, the same were allowable as a deduction u/s.43B of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the lower authorities had misconceived the settled position of law and disallowed the aforementioned amounts, despite the fact that the same had been deposited prior to "due date" of filing of the return of income by the assessee company. 10. In order to answer the issue as to whether or not the employees contribution to welfare funds falls within the scope and domain of Sec. 43B of the Act, we may herein draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd in ITA No. 399/12, dated 11.07.2014. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay was, inter alia, called upon to answer the following substantial questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench in the case of the Value Momentum Software Services Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2197/Hyd/2017, dated 19.05.2021, had observed, that the amendments in section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act, vide respective explanations that had been made available on the statue by the Finance Act, 2021, are applicable only from 01.04.2021 i.e. w.e.f A.Y 2021-22 onwards. For the sake of clarity the observations of the tribunal in its aforesaid order are culled out as under:- "5.1 We may observe that the ld. CIT(A) in its order at para no. 7.15 itself has observed that the issue has been highly contentious and different High Courts have taken divergent views on the same issue, out of which some are in favour of the assessee and some are against the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the judgments and orders relied upon by the assessee have been rendered before the clarificatory amendments made in the Finance Act, 2021 and the Finance Act, 2021 has put an end to this controversy. 5.2 Admittedly there is plethora of judgments in favour of the Assessee's contention and of the Revenue. The controversy with regard to divergent views of different High Courts, has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ective application of the amended provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act wherein Explanations have been inserted by Finance Act, 2021 qua employees' share in respect of PF & ESI Act, is also unsustainable . 5.4 In view of the above discussions, the disallowances of Rs.5,88,203/- for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.60,540/- for A.Y.2019-2020 made by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not sustainable and, hence, the same stands deleted." On the basis of our aforesaid deliberations, we are of the considered view, that as the amendments made available on the statue vide the Finance Act, 2021 i.e "Explanation 5" to Section 43B and "Explanation 2" to Section 36(1)(va) are applicable w.e.f 01.04.2021, i.e, from A.Y 2021-22 onwards, therefore, the same would not have any bearing on the case of the assessee before us, i.e, for A.Y 2011- 12. Accordingly, drawing support from the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, we, herein conclude, that as the employees contributions to PF and ESI of Rs.2,88,976/-was deposited by the assessee before the "due date" of filing of its return of income for the year under consideration, therefore, the same being saved by the provisi....