TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case that EPF deposited if allowable for deduction u/s 43B as per clarification in ready reckoner of edition 2019, para-49.7-1 & 49.7-2 as well as in support of contention we are submitting decisions regarding factual and legal positions which is squarely applicable to our case -(i) (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.)(HC) CIT v/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, (ii) 2014 363 ITR 307 (Raj.) Jaipur ITA No. 435 & 436/CTK/2017 Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (iii) 2021 Tax World 103 (Kar) Mohan Garh Engineers & Construction Co. Jaipur vs. DCIT, CPC Bengaluru-61. 3. In the above referred cases, hon'ble HC and Appellate Tribunal has held that "the employees contribution towards EPF and ESI etc. deposited after the due date but before the time allowed for filing Income Tax Return u/s 139(1) will not call for any disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. (3) The Appeal Authority has taken erroneous interpretation Of Explanation-2 inserted made effective from 01.04.2021 which has applied in the instant case of the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 which is against law and natural justice. The assessee vide has application/s 154 of Income Tax Act 1961....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowance U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act can be made and in support thereof, the ld. A/R submitted that recently the Coordinate Bench of the Jaipur Tribunal in the case of M/s. Classic Aircon for the assessment year 2018-19 in ITA No. 285/JP/2021 dated 06.04.2022 has also taken a similar view. The ld. A/R placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. JVVNL Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 207 (Raj.), CIT vs. SBBJ Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 70, PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (DB IT 150/2016) (Raj.), CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 and the decision Jaipur Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board in ITA No. 981/JP/2017. It was further submitted that the recently Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal has also taken a similar view in case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction company vs DCIT, CPC (in ITA No. 405/JODH/2021 dated 12.08.2021) and similar view has been taken by the Bangalore Benches in case of Shri Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar vs. ACIT (in ITA No. 359/Bang/2021 dated 12.10.2021). It was further submitted that the explanation added to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relating to employee's contribution towards ESI/PF and our findings therein read 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 income, it is noted that the assessee has deposited the employees's contribution towards ESI and PF well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) and the last of such deposits were made on 16.04.2019 whereas due date of filing the return for the impugned assessment year 2019-20 was 31.10.2019 and the return of income was also filed on the said date. Admittedly and undisputedly, the employees's contribution to ESI and PF which have been collected by the assessee from its employees have thus been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 14. The issue is no more res integra in light of series of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court starting from CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) and subsequent decisions. 15. In this regard, we may refer to the initial decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn 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 this provision was brought in as the due amounts on one pretext or the other were not being deposited by the assessees though substantial benefits had been obtained by them in the shape of the amount having been claimed as a deduction but the said amounts were not deposited. It is pertinent to note that the respective Act such as PF etc. also provides that the amounts can be paid later on subject to payment of interest and other consequences and to get benefit under the Income Tax Act, an assessee ought to have actually deposited the entire amount as also to adduce evidence regarding such deposit on or before the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act. 23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Finance Bill, 2021, however, we find that there are express wordings in the said memorandum which says "these amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years". In the instant case, the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2019-20 and therefore, the said amended provisions cannot be applied in the instant case. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bangalore Benches in case of Shri Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar vs. ACIT (supra) wherein it has held as under:- "7. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution is made on or before due date for furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, then the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction. Therefore, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment to the provisions to section 4....