TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delay was beyond the control of appellant as narrated below:- That the Appeal papers were delivered to dispatch clerk on 19.02.2022 for dispatch through Speed Post. However, on Saturday the relevant counted was not working due to duties of post office staff for election work. On 20.02.2022, there were elections in Punjab and on 21.02.2022 Post office was closed. Therefore, appeal could be sent through Speed Post only on 22.02.2022 and was received by registry of this Hon'ble ITAT on 23.02.2022, resulting in delay of 2 days. It is further submitted that Hon'ble as India witnessed a sharp rise in the Covid-19 cases in January 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided to restore the limitation extension. As per the order of the Apex Court dated 10 January 2022, the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 would stand excluded for the purpose of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed the following directions while deciding a miscellaneous application filed by the SCAORA: The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inally disposed off. 6. The only grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 1386069/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. 8. Nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee moved an application for adjournment. However, it is noticed that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 20/10/2021 passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in ITA Nos.191 & 192/Chd/2021 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar and in the case of Sanchi Management Services Private Limited Vs. ITO, Chandigarh in ITA No. 190/Chd/2021 for the A.Y. 2018-19. Therefore, the application for adjournment is rejected. 9. The Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 10. We have considered the subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are inclined to follow the same and we reproduce the order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vijayshree Ltd. supra wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has taken note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. reported in 390 ITR 306. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in Vijayshree Ltd. supra is reproduced as under: "This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against an order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 1091/Kol/2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A). The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the deletion of the addition by the AO on account of Employees 'Contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue's case is supported by the following case law. (i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam& Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore." 10. On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:- "13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee as part of its return of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further envisage that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date admissible at the time of submitting return of the income under Section 139 of the Act in respect of the previous year can be claimed by the assessee for deduction out of their gross total income. It is also clear that Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1) (va) and if read in isolation Sec. 43B would become obsolete. Accordingly, contention of counsel for the revenue is not tenable for the reason aforesaid that deductions out of the gross income for payment of tax at the time of submission of return under Section 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of PF or other contribution referred to in Clause (b) are paid within the due date under the respective enactments by the assessees and not under the due date of filing of return. 22. We have already observed that till....