TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact that the impugned disallowance made by the CPC does not fall within "adjustments" as specified u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act and accordingly the said disallowance cannot be made at the time of processing the Return of Income u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. 3. Without any prejudice whatsoever to the above grounds, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in not following the ratio of the judgment of jurisdictional High Court of Bombay, where the Hon. High Court has held that the provisions of section 43B of the Act are applicable to employees' contribution to Provident fund and ESIC. Considering this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, no disallowance can be made in the case of the appellant since the payments are made within the due date for filing the Return of Income. 4. The NFAC has erred in interpreting that the amendments made to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 will also apply to the earlier years and thereby holding that the disallowance in the case of the appellant is justified when seen in light of the said amendments by the Finance Act, 2021." 3. In spite of issue of notice non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provisions u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act?" 7.1 In deciding the above substantial question of law, the Hon'ble High Court rendered the following findings:- "20. Paragraph-38 of the PF Scheme provides for Mode of payment of contributions. As provided in sub para (1), the employer shall, before paying the member, his wages, deduct his contribution from his wages and deposit the same together with his own contribution and other charges as stipulated therein with the provident fund or the fund under the ESI Act within fifte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll apply for and from assessment year 2021-2022 onwards. The following orders of the Tribunal had categorically held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services v. ACIT in ITA No.622/Del/2018 (order dated 27.08.2021). (iv) M/s.Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited v. DCIT in ITA No.307/Bang/2021 (order dated 11th October, 2021) 7.3 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncements cited supra, the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely A.Y. 2019-2020. Accordingly, I direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of employees' contribution to PF and ESI since the assessee has made payment before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the afore said, we delete the addition of Rs.2,07,209". 3.5.1. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Rajastan Beverages Corporation Ltd., (2017) [84 taxmann.com 173] held that no disallowance can be made in respect of PF and ESI u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, if the same are deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income. For the sake clarity and convenience we extract relevant part of the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High as under: "5. So far as the question relating to privilege fees amounting to Rs.26.00 Crores in the instant year as well as the deduction of claim of Rs.17,80,765/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) and ESI is concerned, this Court has extensively considered the aforesaid two questions in assessee's own case vide judgment and order dt.26.05.2016 referred to (supra) and has held that the privilege fees being a revenue expenditure, is required to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far as payment of PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or be....