Anil Kumar Sharma, Haryana V. Circle-44(1), New Delhi

ITA 1830/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9741 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1830/DEL/2021 Assessment Year 2019-20 Anil Kumar Sharma, CA M R Sahu, M Sahu & Associates, Chartered Accountants, House No.651, 1 st Floor, Sector- 10A, Nr. Union Bank of India. Gurgaon. v. Circle-44(1), New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAYPS2087f (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri M.R. Sahu, CA Respondent by: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 25 05 2022 Date of pronouncement: 07 06 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: Th e cap tio n ed ap peal h as b een filed at th e in s tan ce o f th e assesse e ag ain st t h e o rd er o f th e Co mmiss io n er o f Inco me Tax (Ap p eals), Natio n a l Fac eles s Ap p eal Cen tre (NFAC), [‘CIT(A)’ in sh o rt], d at ed 1 9 .09 .2 0 21 arisin g fro m th e in t imat ion o rd er d ated 3 1 .0 7 .20 2 0 p assed b y th e Asst. Dire cto r o f In co me Ta x , Cen tral Pro cessin g Cen ter, Ban g alo re, u n d er Sect io n 1 43 (1) o f th e In co me Tax Act, 1 9 6 1 (th e Act) co n cern in g AY 2 0 19 -20 . 2 . At th e ti me o f h earin g , it was n o ticed th at th ere is a d e l ay in fi l in g o f ap p eal b y 1 4 d ay s. It was su b mit ted th at th e d elay h as o ccu rred on acco un t o f Co v id -1 9 fo r wh ich th e li mita t io n p erio d h as b een ex ten d ed b y th e Ho n ’b le S u p reme Co u rt in th e case o f I.T.A. No.1830/Del/2021 2 Co g n izan ce fo r Ex ten sio n o f L i mi ta ti o n (20 2 2) 1 34 tax man n .co m 3 0 7 (SC). Th e d elay b ein g v ery sho rt an d mit ig at in g circu mstan c es sh o wn , th e d e lay is co n d o n ed . 3 . As p er its g rou nd s o f ap p eal, th e assessee h ere in h as ch all en g ed th e d isal lo wan ce o f Rs.1 9 ,1 9 ,5 3 4 /- o n acco u n t o f d elay ed p ay men t o f emp lo y ee’s co n trib u tio n to ward s EP F an d ESI. 4 . Wh en th e mat ter was cal led fo r h ea rin g , ld . co u nsel fo r th e assesse e, Sh ri M .R. S ah u , CA su b mi tted th at th e i mpu g n ed emp lo y ee’s co n tri b u tio n to ward s PF an d ESIC h as b een p aid an d d ep o sited b efo re th e d u e d ate al lo wed u /s.1 3 9 (1 ) alth o u g h th e assesse e h as re mit ted th e p ay men t b ela ted ly an d b eyo n d th e d u e d ates sp eci fied in resp ects Acts . It was th u s co n ten d ed th at wh ere th e ass essee h as c o mp lied w ith th e o b lig at io n o f p ay me n t to ward s emp lo y ee’s co n tri b u tio n b efo re th e d u e d ate, th e d edu ctio n s are allo wab le u /s .3 6 (1)(v a) o f th e Act as h eld in sev eral ju d ic ial p ro no un cemen ts i n clu d in g th e d ecisio n o f Hon ’b le Delh i Hig h co u rt in th e case of Pr.CIT v s. Pro Interac tiv e Serv ice ( In d ia) Pv t. Ltd . v id e o rd er d at ed 1 0 .0 9 .2 01 8 in ITA No .9 8 3 /20 18. 5 . Ld . DR fo r th e Re v en u e relied u p o n th e in t i ma tion o rd er an d th e firs t ap p ella te o rd er. 6 . On p eru sal o f th e reco rd s, we o b serv e th at th e Asse ssin g Officer h as mad e th e i mp u g n ed ad d itio n o n th e g rou nd th at th e assesse e h as d ep o sited e mp lo y ee’s co n trib u tio n to ward s Pro v id en t Fu n d an d ESI amo u n tin g to Rs .1 9 ,1 9 ,5 34 /- after d u e d ate as p rescrib ed u n d er th e relev an t Act / R u les in b reach o f Ex p lan atio n 5 to Sectio n 4 3 B o f th e Act. Th e Assessin g Officer a cco rd in g ly reso rted to th e ad d itio n s u n d er Sect io n 3 6 (1 )(v a) read wi th I.T.A. No.1830/Del/2021 3 Sect io n 2 (2 4 )(x ) o f th e Ac t. 7 . It is th e c ase o f th e assess ee b e fo re l o wer au tho rities th at it h as d ep o sited th e emp lo y ee’s co n tri b u tio n in EPF and ESI b efo re th e d u e d ate o f fi l i n g o f retu rn o f in co me st ip u la ted u n der Sect io n 1 3 9 (1 ) o f th e Ac t. 8 . We fin d th at th e i d en tica l issu e h as b een d ecid ed in fa v o ur o f th e assess ee b y th e Ho n ’b le Delh i Hig h Co u rt in t h e case o f Pr.CIT v s. Pro In tera ct iv e S erv ice (In d ia ) P vt . L td. vid e o rd er d a ted 1 0 .09 .2 01 8 in ITA No .9 83 /2 01 8. Th e ex tract o f th e ju d g men t is rep ro d u ced as u n d er: “ I n v i e w o f t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i v i s i o n B e n c h o f De l h i H i g h C o u r t i n C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n c o m e - T a x v e r s u s A i m i l L im i t e d , ( 2 0 1 0 ) 3 2 1 I T R 5 0 8 ( D e l ) t h e i s s u e i s c o v e r e d a g a i n s t t h e R e v e n u e a n d , t h e r e f o r e , n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n o f l a w a r i s e s f or c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h i s a p p e a l . T h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t w a s / i s t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e am o u n t p a i d i s a l l o w e d a s a n e x p e n d i t u r e o n l y w h e n p a y m e n t i s a c t ua l l y m a d e . We d o n o t t h i n k t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t a n d o b j e c ti v e i s t o t r e a t b e l a t e d p a y m e n t o f E m p l o y e e ' s P r o v i d e n t F u n d ( E P F ) a n d E m p l o y e e ' s S t a t e I n s u r a n c e S c h e m e (E S I ) a s d e e m e d in c o m e o f t h e e m p l o y e r u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 ( 2 4 ) ( x ) o f t h e A c t . ” 9 . Resp ect fu l ly fo l lo win g th e b in d in g p reced en ts o f Ho n ’b le Delh i Hig h Co u rt, we d irec t th e Assessin g Officer to al lo w th e cla i m o f th e asses see an d d elete th e ad d itio n . Hen ce, t h e g ro u nd s o f ap p eal ra ised b y th e assess ee are a l lo wed . 1 0 . Wh ile co n clu d in g so , we a lso t ak e n o te o f th e ple a o f th e assesse e th a t d e l ay ed p ay men t o f emp lo y ee’s co n tribu tio n to I.T.A. No.1830/Del/2021 4 PF/ESIC is n o t d isal lo wab le as t h e amen d men ts t o Sectio n 3 6 (1)(v a) and Sectio n 4 3 B effec ted b y Fin an ce Act, 2 0 21 were ap p licab l e p ro sp ectiv e ly in relat io n to Assessmen t Ye ar 2 02 1 -2 2 an d sub seq u en t years. Th erefo re , th e cla i m o f d e d u ctio n o f co n trib u tio n to E mp lo y ee’s S tat e I n su ran ce Sch eme (ESI) an d Pro v id en t Fu nd u /s.3 6 (1 )(v a) co u ld n o t b e d en ied to th e assessee in Assessmen t Year 2 0 1 7-1 8 in q u estio n o n th e b asis o f amen d men ts mad e b y Fin an ce Act, 2 0 2 1 . For th is p ro po sitio n , we fin d su p p ort fro m th e d ecis io n of th e Co -o rd in ate Ben ch o f Trib u n al in th e c ase o f Th e Co n t i n en ta l Res ta u ra n t a n d Ca fé Co mp an y vs. ITO a s rep o rted in (2 0 2 1 ) 9 1 ITR (Trib .)(S .N. ) 6 0 (Ba n g .) an d Ad ya r An a n da Bh a van Swee ts In d ia P. L td . vs . ACIT , ITA No .4 0 2 and 40 3 /Ch n y/2 0 21 o rd er d a ted 0 8 .1 2 .20 2 1. Co n seq u en tly , th e act io n o f rev en u e o n th is sco re is se t asid e an d can cel led . 1 1 . We fu rth er n o tice th at th e i mp u g n ed add itio n o f Rs.1 9 ,1 9 ,5 3 4 /- h as b een mad e wh i le p ro cessin g th e retu rn o f in co me u n d er Sect i o n 14 3 (1 ) o f th e Act. Th e Co -o rd in ate Ben ch o f th e Trib u n al in th e cas e o f Ka lp esh S yn th etics (P. ) L td . vs . DCIT (2 0 2 2 ) 1 3 7 ta xmann .co m 4 75 (Mu m. Trib ) o b serv ed th a t sco p e o f p rima fa cie d isa ll o wan ce u n d er Sectio n 1 4 3 (1 ) is in h eren tly v ery li mited an d o n ly su ch d isallo wan ce can b e mad e u nd er th is sta tu to ry p rov isio n as can b e co n clu siv ely h eld to b e in ad mis sib l e b ased o n mat eria l o n reco rd . Th e cla i m o f th e as sessee fo r allo wab i li ty o f emp lo y ee’s co n trib u tio n to PF/ESIC u nder Sectio n 3 6 (1)(v a) r.w.s. 2 (2 4 )(x ) o f th e Act i s b ack ed by bin d in g ju d icial p reced en t o f th e Ho n ’b le Ju risd ictio n al Hig h Co u rt and h en ce su ch ad ju st men ts u n d er Sect io n 1 43 (1 ), at th e min i mu m, can n o t fal l in th is ca teg o ry . Hence o n th is sco re also , th e ad ju s tmen ts to ward s I.T.A. No.1830/Del/2021 5 emp lo y ees co n trib u tio n to PF/ESIC resu ltin g in d isallo wan ce th ereo f is n o t p ermissib le in law. 1 2 . In th e resu l t, th e a p p eal o f th e asses s ee is a llo wed . Order was pronounced in the open Court on 07/06/2022. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: /06/2022 Prabhat