Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4865 (ITAT-INDORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-04-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2019-2020
Appeal Filed On
28-09-2021
Judgement Text
ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No.151/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 GSD Constructions Indore Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT/ACIT, Indore 2(1), Plot No. Indore. M-II Shagun, Scheme No.54, A.B. Road, Indore. [PAN – AAAECG 2178A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. ITA No.152/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kavita Bapat, vs. DCIT/ACIT – 1(1), AHD-30, PT. Deendayal Indore. Naghar, Sukhliya Indore. [PAN – ABHPB 5303 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Amit Chaudhary, A.R.. Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. ITA No.154/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. VSN International, vs. Income Tax Officer -4(3), 5, Bhagirathpura Industrial Area, Indore. Indore. [PAN – AAJFV 2824 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Venus Rawka, A.R. Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 2 of 11 ITA No.173/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Capital Diesels, vs. D.C.I.T., Hotel Mayur Complex, C.P.C., Bengaluru. Berasia Road, Bhopal (M.P.) [PAN – AAAFC 7032 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.A. Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. ITA Nos.193 & 194/Ind/2021 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mukesh Yagnik, vs. C.I.T., 07, Karoli Nagar, Ujjain, M.P. Behind Keladevi Temple, Dewas Naka, Dewas (M.P.) [PAN – AAOPY 7131 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. ITA Nos.206 & 207/Ind/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Galaxy Weblinks Limited, vs. The DCIT/The ADIT, C/o. S V Agrawal & Associates, CPC, Bengaluru. Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (M.P.) [PAN – AACCG 7407 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, ARs Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 3 of 11 ITA No.209/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vivek Singhal, vs. CPC, Bengaluru 47, Manish Bagh Colony, Indore (M.P.). [PAN – ADUPS 9604 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G.B. Agrawal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 23.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 08.04.2022 ITA Nos.177 & 178/Ind/2021 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT – 2(1), Indore. 50-51, Pologound Industrial Area, Indore . [PAN – AAACK 7080 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Supriya Sharma, AR Respondent by : Ram Maurya, D.R. Date of hearing : 24.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 08.04.2022 O R D E R PER BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, A.M.: THESE APPEALS: 1. These eleven appeals filed by different parties [referred to as “assessee”] are directed against the orders passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal) [“Ld. CIT(A)”] as per the following details: ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 4 of 11 S.No. ITA No. / Party Assessment Year Date of CIT(A)’s order 1. 151/Ind/2021 GSD Constructions Indore Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT 2018-19 30/07/2021 2. 152/Ind/2021 Kavita Bapat, vs. DCIT/ACIT – 1(1) 2018-19 09/06/2021 3. 154/Ind/2021 M/s. VSN International vs. Income Tax Officer -4(3) 2019-20 19/07/2021 4. 173/Ind/2021 Capital Diesels vs. D.C.I.T. 2018-19 31/08/2021 5. 193/Ind/2021 Mukesh Yagnik vs. C.I.T. 2017-18 13/08/2021 6. 194/Ind/2021 Mukesh Yagnik vs. C.I.T. 2018-19 13/08/2021 7. 206/Ind/2021 M/s. Galaxy Weblinks Limited vs. The DCIT/The ADIT 2018-19 30/09/2021 8. 207/Ind/2021 M/s. Galaxy Weblinks Limited vs. The DCIT/The ADIT 2019-20 27/08/2021 9. 209/Ind/2021 Vivek Singhal vs. CPC, Bengaluru 2019-20 09/09/2021 10. 177/Ind/2021 M/s. Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 2(1), Indore. 2018-19 28/04/2021 11. 178/Ind/2021 M/s. Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – 2(1), Indore. 2018-19 28/04/2021 As the issue involved in all these appeals is same, we heard these appeals together and proceed to decide the same by this common order. ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 5 of 11 2. The registry has informed that that the Appeal at S.No. 8 and 9 were required to be filed by 26.10.2021 and 08.11.2021 but the same were actually filed on 01.11.2021 and 09.11.2021, after a delay of 6 days and 1 day respectively. The Ld. AR prayed that the delay has occurred due to Covid-19 Pandemic. The Ld. AR further placed reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 read with Misc. Applications, by which suo motu extension of the limitation-period for filing of appeals w.e.f. 15.03.2020 under all laws has been granted and hence there is no delay in fact. We confronted the Ld. DR who agreed to the submission of Ld. AR. In view of this, the appeal are proceeded with for hearing, there being no delay. BACKGROUND: 3. In all these cases, the return filed by the assessee was processed by the learned CPC, Bangalore [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] after making a disallowance of delayed payment of employees’ contributions to Provident Fund / Employees State Insurance (“PF / ESI”). Being aggrieved by the disallowance so made by Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of assessee. Again the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred appeal and now before us. ISSUE: 4. The sole controversy involved is related to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of employee’s contributions to PF / ESI. SUBMISSION OF Ld. AR: ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 6 of 11 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating that though the assessee had not deposited the employees’ contributions to PF / ESI upto the due dates prescribed under the PF / ESI laws, yet the assessee had deposited the same to the respective funds within the time permitted u/s 43B of the Act i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing the return of income and hence no disallowance is attracted in view of numerous decisions of Hon’ble High Courts favouring the assessee. Some of the decisions relied upon by Ld. AR are mentioned below: (a) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508. (b) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (c) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. / Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill (2017) 250 Taxman 32 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of the assessee by decision of this very Bench of ITAT in the case of Nataraj Dal Mill, Indore vs. ACIT ITA No. 153/IND/2021 order dated 06.12.2021. 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that even otherwise the impugned disallowance is debatable in nature and outside the scope of section 143(1)(iv) of the Act invoked by the Ld. AO and therefore also not sustainable, as held by ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in M/s. S.V. Engineering Constructions India (P) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.130/Viz/2021) order dated 23.09.2021. 8. With these submissions, the Ld. AR prayed that the disallowance made by Ld. AO is illegal and deserves to be deleted. ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 7 of 11 SUBMISSION OF Ld. DR: 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities. He further submitted that in following decisions it has been held that once the employees’ contributions are paid after the due dates under PF / ESI laws, disallowance is attracted even if the assessee has made payments within the time allowed u/s 43B i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing of return: (a) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100 (b) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT vs. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2020) 115 taxmann.com 340 (c) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 443 10. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Finance Act, 2021 has also inserted Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B as under: Section 36(1)(va): “Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date" under this clause; Section 43B: “Explanation 5.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.” The Ld. DR submitted that with the introduction of these amendments, it is very much clear that the due dates specified in section 43B shall not apply. According to the Ld. DR, the impact would be such that if the employees’ contributions are paid after the due dates under the PF / ESI laws, disallowance would happen. The Ld. DR further submitted that the ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 8 of 11 words “... shall be deemed never to have been applied ...” appearing in these newly inserted Explanations clearly demonstrate that the amendments, though inserted from 01.04.2021, are clarificatory in nature and hence they would apply retrospectively in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2004) 5 SCC 1. Therefore, according the Ld. DR the amendments are applicable to the assessment-year involved in the present appeal too and hence the disallowance made by Ld. AO is very much in accordance with the law. 11. With these submissions, the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the employees contributions to PF / ESI not paid by the assessee upto due dates under the PF / ESI laws and therefore the disallowance must be upheld. OUR ANALYSIS: 12. We have considered the rival contentions and submission of both sides and also perused the relevant materials available on record. Before proceeding further we would like to mention that the assessee has deposited the impugned contributions to the PF / ESI, though after due date under PF / ESI law but within the time allowed u/s 43B i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing return of income and there is no dispute on this point by revenue. 13. Regarding the decisions relied upon by both sides, we observe that there are divergent views of Hon’ble High Courts on the allowability of employees’ contributions to PF / ESI paid after due dates under the PF / ESI laws but within the time allowed u/s 43B. While the Ld. AR has relied upon various decisions favouring to the assessee, the Ld. DR has quoted the decisions against the assessee. We are also informed by both sides that there is no decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh on this issue. In this situation, we are mindful of the decision in Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 9 of 11 possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. In view of this, the decisions favouring the assessee shall get preference over the decisions against the assessee. Being so we hold that the employees contributions paid after due date under PF / ESI law but within the time allowed u/s 43B, are allowable as deduction. 14. Regarding the amendments made through Finance Act, 2021, it is specifically mentioned by the legislature that the amendments are effective from 01.04.2021. Further the Memorandum explaining the Provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 clearly prescribes thus: “These amendments will take effect from 1 st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.” Thus, the legislature itself has categorically stated that the amendments shall apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Therefore these amendments are not applicable to the assessment- years preceding the assessment-year 2021-22 i.e. not applicable upto assessment-year 2020-21. This has also been held so in several decisions of ITAT Benches including following: (a) ITAT Kolkata in Harendra Nath Biswas Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 16.07.2021 (b) ITAT Hyderabad in Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Limited Vs. ITO, ITA No. 644/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 15.06.2021 (c) ITAT Jodhpur in Akbar Mohammad Vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore ITA No. 108 &109 / Jodh / 2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, order dated 31.01.2022 The reliance of the Ld. DR upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh (supra) in fact supports the assessee’s case and not revenue’s case. The conclusion coming from this decision is very clear that when there is a specific effective date given by the Act, the amendment will ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 10 of 11 be effective from that date only and if there is no mention of retrospective applicability, it will not apply to the earlier dates. 15. It is also noteworthy that this Bench has recently decided several appeals, a few mentioned hereunder, wherein the similar disallowance made by Ld. AO has been deleted: (a) ITA No. 175 / Ind / 2021 Shri Virendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, order dated 30.03.2022 (b) ITA No. 184 / Ind / 2021 M/s Prestige Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT-4(1), Indore order dated 30.03.2022 (c) ITA No. 223 / Ind / 2021 Kamal Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, order dated 30.03.2022 16. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion, we observe that employees’ contributions to PF / ESI paid after due date under PF / ESI laws but within the time allowed u/s 43B i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing of return is allowable as deduction in computing taxable income of business and the assesse had rightly claimed the same. Therefore the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) were not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. We therefore delete the disallowance made by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). DISPOSITION: 17. In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on this 8 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) Judicial Member Accountant Member Indore, the 8 th day of April, 2022 PBN/* ITA Nos.151/Ind/2021 and Others Page 11 of 11 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
