2022 (10) TMI 392

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessment years as appearing hereinabove, as per the following grounds of appeal. ITA No. 533/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 - Mohite Electronics Pvt. Ltd. "The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of alleged delay in payment of employees' contribution of provident fund ('PF') and ESI under the respective laws without appreciating the fact that, the payments are already made before the due date for filing of income-tax return u/s 139(1) of the Act. He failed to appreciate that the matter is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court. He further failed to appreci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 9,25,597/- made by the ld. A.O and that confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted and the appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 2. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in both these appeals are absolutely identical and similar. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. The only issue involved in both these appeals is the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessees that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance. The Tribunal held as follows: 6. When the matter was called on none appeared on behalf of the appellants listed at Sl. No.2 to 6 of above cause title, despite due service of notice of hearing, except in the case of Tilokchand Bhabutmal Shah (listed at Sl. No.1 of the above cause title). Therefore, we proceed to dispose of all the appeals on merits after hearing the ld. CIT-DR. 7. We heard the ld. CIT-DR and perused the material on record. The only issue raised through various grounds of appeal in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.1,46,592/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of the Employees' share of EPF and ESI etc. 8. At the outset....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of facts before the ld. first appellate authority that the assessee did deduct employees' share of EPF and ESI and paid the same after the due date under the respective legislations but before the time stipulated for filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act for the year under consideration. In our opinion, this issue is no more res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees' share of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer's contribution and both are to be allowed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts cited above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.1,46,592/- made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.538/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 stands allowed." 5. In the aforestated decision, the Tribunal has relied on Hon'ble Jurisdictional High....