Ramjee Concretes Pvt.Ltd., Mohali V. ITO-Ward-6(3), Chandigarh

ITA 205/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0137 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law; Revised return
• Section: 43B; 139; 143(1); 143(2); 191; 139(1); 64; 43; 13; 22

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ, च डीगढ़ I N T H E I N C O M E T A X A P P E L L A T E T R I B U N A L D I V I S I O N B E N C H , “ S M C ” , C H A N D I G A R H B E F OR E SH R I N . K . SA I N I , V I C E P R E SI D E N T & S H R I S U D H A N S HU SR I V A S T A V A , J U D I C I A L M E M B E R आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 205/C H D / 2 0 2 1 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2 0 1 9 - 2 0 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, #1238.Sector 91, Mohali, Punjab बनाम The ITO, Ward 6(3), Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAFCR9457E अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri T.N. Singla, CA राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT स ु नवाई क तार%ख/Date of Hearing : 22.12.2021 उदघोषणा क तार%ख/Date of Pronouncement : 17. 01.2022 आदेश/Order P er S u d h an sh u S ri va s ta va , J u d i c i a l M e mb e r : T hi s a p pe al is pr e f er re d b y t h e as s e s s ee ag a i ns t t he or de r d a te d 30 . 0 7. 2 02 1 pa s se d by t he Co m mi s s io ne r o f In co me T ax (A p pe a ls ) , N at i o na l F a ce l es s A p pea l C e n t re ( N F A C) , D el hi [ he rei n a ft e r r e f er r e d t o a s ‘ CIT (A )’ ] u/ s 2 50 o f t he I n c o me T a x A ct , 196 1 (i n s h or t ' t h e A ct ' ). 2. T he b r i e f f ac t s o f th e c as e a r e t h a t t h e a s s e ss ee i s a P r iv at e L i m it e d c o mp an y e nga ge d i n t he bus i ne s s o f ma n u f ac tu r e o f re ad y mi x c on c r e t e , b ri ck s , c e m e n te d b l o c ks a n d c on s t r u ct i o n w or k. Th e re tu rn o f i nc o me w a s f il e d de c la ri ng a n i nc o m e o f Rs . 31 , 1 6, 630 / - , w hi ch w as pr o c es s e d u/ s 1 43 ( 1 ) o f t he A c t v id e ord e r da te 29 .6. 2 02 0 a ft e r ma k i n g ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 2 a n a dd i t i on o f R s . 2 , 14, 40 2/ - on a c c o u nt o f la t e de p o s i t o f e m p l o ye es s ha re s o f P ro vi d en t F un d (P F ). 2. 1 A ggr i e v e d, th e as s e s s ee pr e fe rr ed a n a pp e a l a gai n s t t h e a bo v e s a i d i nt i m at i o n. T h i s ap p ea l w a s di s mi s s ed by t he N F A C ag a i n s t w hi c h t he a s s es s e e ha s ap p ro a c h e d to t hi s Tr ib u na l a nd h a s rais e d t h e fo ll ow i n g gr o un d s o f a p pe a l : - 1. That the order of Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) is bad and against the facts and Law. 2. That the Learned C.I.T (Appeals) has wrongly upheld the addition made u/s 143(1) without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. That the Learned C.I.T (Appeals) has wrongly upheld disallowance of expense on debatable issue u/s 143(1) of the Act. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has wrongly ignored judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and jurisdictional High Court on the same facts. 5. That the Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding the disallowance of Employees contribution to provident fund and ESI amounting to Rs. 2,14,402/- which was deposited before the due date of filling of return 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing 2. 2 A pa rt fr o m t h is , t h e a s s e s se e h as a l so ra i s e d t h e f ol l ow i ng a dd i t io n a l gr o un d s o f ap pe al , w h ic h r e a d as un d e r; - 1. T hat t h e ed uc a ti on c es s pai d o n in com e t a x a m o un t i ng t o Rs . 64 , 6 27 / - du r i n g th e y e a r i s wr on gl y n o t a l l ow e d. ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 3 2. T hat t he ad di ti on a l gr o u nd m a de by t he a p pe l l an t i n t he ap p e a l p e n di ng wit h t h e H o n' bl e I T A T be a l l o we d, t he c l a i m o f wh i c h wa s n ot m ad e i n t h e r e t ur n. 3. 0 A t t he o ut s et , t h e L d. A ut h or is e d Re p re s e n t a t iv e ( A R) s ub m i tt e d t h a t t he i s s ue o f l a te d e p os i t o f e m p l o yees c ont r i bu ti on o f P . F . w as c ove r e d i n fa vo ur o f t h e a s s es se e b y t h e n u me rou s or de rs o f t he T ri bu na l a nd, th er e fo re , t h e i s s ue s h o ul d b e d e ci ded i n fa v o u r o f t h e a s s es s e e. 4. 0 P e r co n t r a , t he Ld . S r. D R s upp or t e d t h e or de r o f t h e N FA C. 5. 0 Wi t h re s pe c t t o t h e ad di t i o n a l g ro u n d o f ap pe a l, t he L d. A R s ub m i tt e d t ha t t h is g ro un d w a s be i n g ra i s e d as a n add it i ona l g ro u n d. I t w as fa ir l y a c c e p t e d by t h e L d. A R t ha t t h i s gr o un d ha d n ot b e e n ra i se d e ar li e r b e f o re t he N F A C . Re l ia nc e w as p l a c ed o n the j u d ge me nt o f t h e H on' bl e K a rn at ak a H i gh C ou r t i n t h e ca s e o f P C IT V s. K ar na t a ka S ta t e Co o p F e d e r a t i o n Lt d r e p o r t ed i n [ 2 02 1 ] 2 8 0 t ax m a n 45 2 ( K a rn a na t a ) f or t he p r op os it i on t h a t a s s es s e e ’s fr es h c l a i m be fo r e a n A ppe l la t e A ut ho r i t y i s e n t e rt a i n a b l e e ve n w h e n t h e s a me is no t c l a i m e d i n t h e o ri gi na l re t ur n o f i n c o m e o r e ve n i f t he a s s e ss e e ha d n ot fi l e d th e r e vi s e d re t u rn t o m a ke s uc h a cl a i m. I t w a s s ub m i t t e d t h a t , t he r e f o re, th is a dd i t i o na l gr o un d sh ou l d b e ad mi t t e d fo r he ar in g . 6. 0 P e r c o n t r a, th e L d . S r. D R s ub m it t ed t ha t t hi s gr o un d w a s n eve r be fo r e t he L d. F ir s t A p p el l at e A u t hor i t y a n d, t h e ref or e, t he s a m e ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 4 de s e r ve s to b e d i s mi s s e d. 7. 0. H av in g go ne t hr ou g h t h e a d d i t i on a l g rou nd a nd a l s o ha v i ng c ons i de re d t h e ar g u m e n ts o f b o th t h e s i de s on t h e is s ue o f a d mi s s i o n o f a dd i t io n a l g r o un d , w e a g re e w i t h t he co n t e nt i o n o f t he L d. A R t ha t an a s s es s e e’ s e nt i r e l y new c l ai m b e for e a n a p pe ll a te aut ho r i t y is e nt er ta i na b l e ev en w hen i t ha s no t be en c l a i m e d in t h e ori gi na l re t u rn o f in co me or e v e n i f t h e a s s es s e e h as n ot fi l e d rev is e d r et ur n o f i nc o me . Th e H on ' b l e A pe x Co ur t i n t h e c a s e o f G o et ze I n d ia L i m it e d V s. CI T r e p or te d i n [ 20 0 6] 2 84 I TR 33 3 ( S C) ha s h el d t ha t e v en i f t h e c l a i m ha s no t b ee n ma de be fo re t h e A s s e ss ing o ff i c e r, i t c a n b e ma d e be fo r e t he A pp e l l a t e A u t h o ri ty . S i mi l ar l y, t h e H o n 'bl e Bom b a y H i gh C o ur t i n t he c as e o f CI T V s . P r ut hvi B r ok e rs an d S h ar e h o l d er s L t d. , re p or t e d i n [2 0 12 ] 3 49 IT R 3 3 6 ( Bo m. ), a ft e r not i ci n g t he j u dg em en t o f t he H o n ' b l e A pe x C ou r t i n t he ca s e o f N a ti on al T h e r m al P o w e r C or p o r at i o n Lt d. V s. CI T re po rt ed i n [ 19 9 8] 2 2 9 IT R 3 8 3 (S C ) , h as r ea ff ir me d t he le ga l pr o pos i t i o n t h a t e v e n i f t h e cl a i m i s n o t b e for e t he A s s e ss i ng o ffi c er , i t c an be ma d e b e for e t h e A ppe l l a t e A u t ho ri ty a n d t h e ju r i sd ic t io n o f t h e A ppe l la t e A ut ho r i t i es t o en te rt a in s u ch a c l a i m is b e yo n d d ou bt . S i mi l a r l y, a D i v i s i on B e nc h o f t he H o n ' bl e D e l h i H ig h C our t in t he c a s e o f CI T V s . J a i P ar ab o li c S p ri n gs L t d. re po r te d i n 3 0 6 I T R 42 (D e l h i ) ha s h e l d t ha t t he re w as no p r oh i bi t i o n o n t he po w e rs o f t h e T r i b u n al t o e nt er ta i n an a ddi t i o na l g r o un d w h i c h a c c o rd i n g t o t h e T r i bu na l a ri s e s i n t he m at t e r a nd is n e ce s s ar y for a j us t d ec is i o n o f t he c a s e . A c c o rd i n g l y, ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 5 w e de e m i t fi t t o ad m i t t h e a d di ti ona l gr ou nd fo r the p u rp os e o f a rg u m e n t s. 8. 0 T he L d . A R s ub mi t t e d t ha t t he a d di t i o na l gr o u nd ra i s e d by t he as s e s s ee pe rt ai ns t o t h e i s s ue o f E d uc a t i on a l Ces s pa i d a lo n g w it h i nc o me ta x t o t h e t une o f Rs . 64, 6 27/ - w hi ch t he ass e s s ee w as s ee ki ng t o be d e du c t e d a s e x p e nd i t ur e . T h e L d . A R s ub mi t te d t ha t t he E d uc at i o na l Ce s s pa i d w a s a d e du c t i bl e ex pe n di tu r e i n v i e w o f th e j u dg e m e n t o f th e H on' bl e B o mb ay H i gh C ou rt i n t he ca s e o f S es a G oa Lt d V s . J CI T 42 3 IT R 42 6 ( B o m. ) a nd fu r t h er c ov e r e d i n fa v ou r o f t h e as s e s s ee by t h e j ud g e m e nt o f t he H on ' b l e Raj a s th an H ig h Co ur t i n t he c a s e o f C h a m b a l F e rt i l i ze rs & C h e m i ca l s V s. J CIT 102 CC H 0 20 2 (R a j. ). 9. 0 We ha ve he ar d t he ri val s ub mi s s io ns a nd c ons i de r e d t h e ma te r i a l on r e c o r d. A s fa r a s t he i s s ue o f l at e de p os i t o f emp l o y e e s c on t r i b u ti o n o f P . F . is c on c e rn e d, w e a g re e w i t h t he c o nt en ti on o f t he L d. A R t ha t t he s a m e i s c o ve r ed i n fa vo ur o f t h e a s s es s e e by th e ord er s o f t h e va r i o us B e n c he s o f t h e T r i b un al s (I TA T ) a cr o s s th e c o u n tr y. T he Ch a n d ig ar h B e nc h o f t he T r i b u na l in IT A N os . 191 & 19 2/ Ch d/ 2 0 2 1 f or t he as s e s s me n t ye a rs 20 17 - 1 8 & 2 01 8 - 19 i n t h e c a s e o f Raj a Ra m V s. IT O , Y a mu n an ag a r a nd i n t h e c a s e o f S a n c h i M a na ge ment S e r vi c es P ri va t e L i mi te d V s . I TO , Cha nd i g a r h in IT A N o. 1 90 /C h d/ 2 02 1 fo r t he A . Y. 20 18- 19 h a s de c i d e d t he i s s ue i n as s e s s ee ’s favo ur . T he r e l e v an t pa r t o f t h e or d e r i s re p ro du c e d as un de r :- ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 6 “5. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was 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. 6. In his rival submissions, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the aforesaid referred to cases, wherein one of us is author of the order dated 20/10/2021. In the said order it has been held vide paras 8 to 10 in ITA Nos.191&192/Chd/2021 in case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar as under:- 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In the present cases, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the aforesaid referred to case, wherein the undersigned is author of the order dated 28.09.2021 and it has been held vide paras 7 to 10 in ITA in ITA Nos.71 & 72/Jodh/2021 as under:- “7. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated by the various Benches of the ITAT. 8.2 In the case of HarendraNathBiswasvs DCIT Koltaka, ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20, similar issue has been decided vide order dated 16.7.2021 by the ITAT ‘B’ ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 7 Bench, Kolkata. The Relevant findings have been given in para 4 of the said order, which read as under;- “4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. First of all we do not countenance this action of the Ld. CIT(A) for the simple reason that the Explanation 5 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021 and relevant assessment year before us is AY 2019-20. Therefore the law laid down by the Jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court will apply and since this Explanation-5 has not been made retrospectively. So we 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 Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After hearing Mr.Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 8 in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988. Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees’ Contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.” In the light of the aforesaid discussion we do not accept the Ld. CIT(A)’s stand denying the claim of assessee since assessee delayed the employees contribtion of EPF & ESI fund and as per the binding decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Vijayshree Ltd. (supra) u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act since assessee had deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income. Therefore, the assessee succeeds and we allow the appeal of the assessee.” 9. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad ‘SMC” Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide order dt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:- “2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 9 Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers 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 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. ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 10 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. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur wherein the Hon’ble High Court after extensively examining the matter and considering the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts has decided the matter in favour of the assessee. In the said decision, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to held as under: “20. On perusal of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43(B)(b) and analyzing the judgments rendered, in our view as well, it is clear that the legislature brought in the statute Section 43(B)(b) to curb the activities of such tax payers who did not discharge their statutory liability of payment of dues, as aforesaid; and rightly so as on the one hand claim was being made under Section 36 for allowing the deduction of GPF, CPF, ESI etc. as per the system followed by the assessees in claiming the deduction i.e. accrual basis and the same was being allowed, as the liability did exist but the said amount though claimed as a deduction was not being deposited even after lapse of several years. Therefore, to put a check on the said claims/deductions having been made, the said provision was brought in to curb the said activities and which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. (supra). 21. A conjoint reading of the proviso to Section 43-B which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 made effective from 01/04/1988, the words numbered as clause (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further 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 ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 11 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 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 be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), and CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra). In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 12 17. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court but has decided to follow the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi, Madras, Gujarat and Kerala High Courts. Given the divergent views taken by the various High Courts and in the instant case, the fact that the jurisdiction over the Assessing officer lies with the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in our considered view, the ld CIT(A) ought to have considered and followed the decision of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, as evident from series of decisions referred supra, as the same is binding on all the appellate authorities as well as the Assessing officer under its jurisdiction in the State of Rajasthan. 18. In light of aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the addition by way of adjustment while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different Benches of the ITAT, the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of deposits of employees contribution of ESI & PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. 12. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed.” 10. So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted. ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 13 8. Since the facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts involved in the case of Raja Ram Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar (supra). So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted.” In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed.” 9. 1 A cc or di ng l y, gro un d N os . 1 t o 5 s t an d al l ow e d. 10 . 0 A s fa r a s t h e is s u e o f Ed uc at i o na l C es s be i ng d e d u ct i bl e e xp e n di t u re i s c o n c e r ne d, w e a gre e w i t h t h e c o n t e n ti o n o f t h e Ld . A R t ha t t he is s ue i s c ov e r e d i n a s s es s e e ’ s fa vo ur by th e j u d ge m e nt o f t h e H on' bl e B o mb a y H i gh C ou rt i n t he ca s e o f S es a G oa Lt d V s . J C IT , (s u pr a ). T he re l e v a nt ob s e r v at i o ns o f t he H on ’ b l e B o mb a y H i gh Co ur t a re c on ta i ne d in t he pa ra gr a p hs 15 to 4 2, w h ic h a re as un d er : - “15. The substantial question of law No.(iii) in Tax Appeal No.17 of 2013 and the only substantial question of law in Tax Appeal No.18 of 2013 is one and the same namely, 'whether Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess, collectively referred to as “cess” is allowable as a deduction in the year of its payment ?'. 16. The aforesaid question arises in the context of provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) which inter alia provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38 of the IT Act, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”, - (a) in the case of any assessee – (ia)........................... (ib)................................ (ic) ............................... (ii) any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains. [Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes and shall be deemed always to have included any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90 or, as the ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 14 case may be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91.] [Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90A;] 17. Therefore, the question which arises for determination is whether the expression “any rate or tax levied” as it appears in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act includes “cess”. The Appellant – Assessee contends that the expression does not include “cess” and therefore, the amounts paid towards “cess” are liable to be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. However, the Respondent – Revenue contends that “cess” is also included in the scope and import of the expression “ any rate or tax levied” and consequently, the amounts paid towards the “cess” are not liable for deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. 18. In relation to taxing statute, certain principles of interpretation are quite well settled. In New Shorrock Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Raval, 37 ITR 41 (Bom.), it is held that one safe and infallible principle, which is of guidance in these matters, is to read the words through and see if the rule is clearly stated. If the language employed gives the rule in words of sufficient clarity and precision, nothing more requires to be done. Indeed, in such a case the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise : Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget. The language used by the Legislature best declares its intention and must be accepted as decisive of it. 19. Besides, when it comes to interpretation of the IT Act, it is well established that no tax can be imposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an intention to lay a burden on him. The subject cannot be taxed unless he comes within the letter of the law and the argument that he falls within the spirit of the law cannot be availed of by the department. [See CIT vs Motors & General Stores 66 ITR 692 (SC)]. 20. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, into the provisions which has not been provided by the legislature [See CIT Vs Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 ]. One can only look fairly at the language used. No tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. It is also not permissible to construe a taxing statute by making assumptions and presumptions [See Goodyear Vs State of Haryana 188 ITR 402(SC)]. 21. There are several decisions which lay down rule that the provision for deduction, exemption or relief should be interpreted liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee and it should be so construed as to effectuate the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. Further, the interpretation cannot go to the extent of reading something that is not stated in the provision [See AGS Tiber Vs CIT 233 ITR 207]. ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 15 22. Applying the aforesaid principles, we find that the legislature, in Section 40(a)(ii) has provided that “any rate or tax levied” on “profits and gains of business or profession” shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. There is no reference to any “cess”. Obviously therefore, there is no scope to accept Ms. Linhares's contention that “cess” being in the nature of a “Tax” is equally not deductable in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. Acceptance of such a contention will amount to reading something in the text of the provision which is not to be found in the text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. 23. If the legislature intended to prohibit the deduction of amounts paid by a Assessee towards say, “education cess” or any other “cess”, then, the legislature could have easily included reference to “cess” in clause (ii) of Section 40(a) of the IT Act. The fact that the legislature has not done so means that the legislature did not intend to prevent the deduction of amounts paid by a Assessee towards the “cess”, when it comes to computing income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. 24. The legislative history bears out that the Income Tax Bill, 1961, as introduced in the Parliament, had Section 40(a)(ii) which read as follows : “(ii) any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains” 25. However, when the matter came up before the Select Committee of the Parliament, it was decided to omit the word “cess” from the aforesaid clause from the Income Tax Bill, 1961. The effect of the omission of the word “cess” is that only any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession are to be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “ profits and gains of business or profession”. Since the deletion of expression “cess” from the Income Tax Bill, 1961, was deliberate, there is no question of reintroducing this expression in Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act and that too, under the guise of interpretation of taxing statute. 26. In fact, in the aforesaid precise regard, reference can usefully be made to the Circular No. F. No.91/58/66-ITJ(19), dated 18th May, 1967 issued by the CBDT which reads as follows :- “Interpretation of provision of Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act, 1961 – Clarification regarding.- “Recently a case has come to the notice of the Board where the Income Tax Officer has disallowed the ‘cess' paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change in the provisions of section 10(4) of the Old Act and Section 40(a)(ii) of the new Act. ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 16 2. The view of the Income Tax Officer is not correct. Clause 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Bill, 1961 as introduced in the Parliament stood as under:- "(ii) any sum paid on account of any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or otherwise on the basis of, any such profits or gains". When the matter came up before the Select Committee, it was decided to omit the word ‘cess' from the clause. The effect of the omission of the word ‘cess' is that only taxes paid are to be disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 and onwards. 3. The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought to the notice of all the Income Tax Officers so that further litigation on this account may be avoided.[Board's F. No.91/58/66-ITJ(19), dated 18-5- 1967.] 27. The CBDT Circular, is binding upon the authorities under the IT Act like Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority. The CBDT Circular is quite consistent with the principles of interpretation of taxing statute. This, according to us, is an additional reason as to why the expression “cess” ought not to be read or included in the expression “any rate or tax levied” as appearing in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. 28. In the Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(4) had banned allowance of any sum paid on account of 'any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession'. In the corresponding Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 the expression “cess” is quite conspicuous by its absence. In fact, legislative history bears out that this expression was in fact to be found in the Income Tax Bill, 1961 which was introduced in the Parliament. However, the Select Committee recommended the omission of expression “cess” and consequently, this expression finds no place in the final text of the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. The effect of such omission is that the provision in Section 40(a)(ii) does not include, “cess” and consequently, “cess” whenever paid in relation to business, is allowable as deductable expenditure. 29. In Kanga and Palkhivala's “The Law and Practice of Income Tax” (Tenth Edition), several decisions have been analyzed in the context of provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961. There is reference to the decision of Privy Council in CIT Vs Gurupada Dutta 14 ITR 100, where a union rate was imposed under a Village Self Government Act upon the assessee as the owner or occupier of business premises, and the quantum of the rate was fixed after consideration of the 'circumstances' of the assessee, including his business income. The Privy Council held that the rate was not 'assessed on the basis of profits' and was allowable as a business expense. Following this decision, the Supreme Court held in Jaipuria Samla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd Vs CIT [82 ITR 580] that the expression 'profits ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 17 or gains of any business or profession' has reference only to profits and gains as determined in accordance with Section 29 of this Act and that any rate or tax levied upon profits calculated in a manner other than that provided by that section could not be disallowed under this sub-clause. Similarly, this subclause is inapplicable, and a deduction should be allowed, where a tax is imposed by a district board on business with reference to 'estimated income' or by a municipality with reference to 'gross income'. Besides, unlike Section 10(4) of the 1922 Act, this sub-clause does not refer to 'cess' and therefore, a 'cess' even if levied upon or calculated on the basis of business profits may be allowed in computing such profits under this Act. 30. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in Income Tax Appeal No.52/2018 decided on 31st July, 2018 (Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs CIT Range-2, Kota ), by reference to the aforesaid CBDT Circular dated 18th May, 1967 has held that the ITAT erred in holding that the “education cess” is a disallowable expenditure under Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Ms. Linhares was unable to state whether the Revenue has appealed this decision. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that his research did not suggest that any appeal was instituted by the Revenue against this decision, which is directly on the point and favours the Assessee. 31. Mr. Ramani, in fact pointed out three decisions of ITAT, in which, the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd.(supra) was followed and it was held that the amounts paid by the Assessee towards the 'education cess' were liable for deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head of “profits and gains of business or profession”. They are as follows :- (i) DCIT Vs Peerless General Finance and Investment and Co. Ltd. (ITA No.1469 and 1470/Kol/2019 decided on 5th December, 2019 by the ITAT, Calcutta; (ii) (ii) DCIT Vs Graphite India Ltd. (ITA No.472 and 474 Co. No.64 and 66/Kol/2018 decided on 22nd November, 2019 )by the ITAT, Calcutta; (iii) (iii) DCIT Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance (ITA No.1111 and 1112/PUN/2017 decided on 25th July, 2019) by the ITAT, Pune. 32. Again, Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue was unable to say whether the Revenue had instituted the appeals in the aforesaid matters. Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant submitted that to the best of his research, no appeals were instituted by the Revenue against the aforesaid decisions of the ITAT. ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 18 33. The ITAT, in the impugned judgment and order, has reasoned that since “cess” is collected as a part of the income tax and fringe benefit tax, therefore, such “cess” is to be construed as “tax”. According to us, there is no scope for such implications, when construing a taxing statute. Even, though, “cess” may be collected as a part of income tax, that does not render such “cess”, either rate or tax, which cannot be deducted in terms of the provisions in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. The mode of collection, is really not determinative in such matters. 34. Ms. Linhares, has relied upon M/s Unicorn Industries Vs Union of India and others, 2019 SCC Online SC 1567 in support of her contention that “cess” is nothing but “tax” and therefore, there is no question of deduction of amounts paid towards “cess” when it comes to computation of income chargeable under the head profits or gains of any business or profession. 35. The issue involved in Unicorn Industries ( supra ) was not in the context of provisions in Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. Rather, the issue involved was whether the 'education cess, higher education cess and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD)' on it could be construed as “duty of excise” which was exempted in terms of Notification dated 9th September, 2003 in respect of goods specified in the Notification and cleared from a unit located in the Industrial Growth Centre or other specified areas with the State of Sikkim. The High Court had held that the levy of education cess, higher education cess and NCCD could not be included in the expression “duty of excise” and consequently, the amounts paid towards such cess or NCCD did not qualify for exemption under the exemption Notification. This view of the High Court was upheld by the Apex Court in Unicorn Industries (supra ). 36. The aforesaid means that the Supreme Court refused to regard the levy of education cess, higher education cess and NCCD as “duty of excise” when it came to construing exemption Notification. Based upon this, Mr. Ramani contends that similarly amounts paid by the Appellant – Assessee towards the “cess” can never be regarded as the amounts paid towards the “tax” so as to attract provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. All that we may observe is that the issue involved in Unicorn Industries ( supra ) was not at all the issue involved in the present matters and therefore, the decision in Unicorn Industries ( supra ) can be of no assistance to the Respondent – Revenue in the present matters. 37. Ms. Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue however submitted that the Appellant – Assessee, in its original return, had never claimed deduction towards the amounts paid by it as “cess”. She submits that neither was any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) to submit that ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 19 the Assessing Officer, was not only quite right in denying such a deduction, but further the Assessing Officer had no power or jurisdiction to grant such a deduction to the Appellant – Assessee. She submits that this is what precisely held by the ITAT in its impugned judgments and orders and therefore, the same, warrants no interference. 38. Although, it is true that the Appellant – Assessee did not claim any deduction in respect of amounts paid by it towards “cess” in their original return of income nor did the Appellant – Assessee file any revised return of income, according to us, this was no bar to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT to consider and allow such deductions to the Appellant – Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The record bears out that such deduction was clearly claimed by the Appellant – Assessee, both before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT. 39. In CIT Vs Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 336, one of the questions of law which came to be framed was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT, in law, was right in holding that the claim of deduction not made in the original returns and not supported by revised return, was admissible. The Revenue had relied upon Goetze (supra ) and urged that the ITAT had no power to allow the claim for deduction. However, the Division Bench, whilst proceeding on the assumption that the Assessing Officer in terms of law laid down in Goetze ( supra ) had no power, proceeded to hold that the Appellate Authority under the IT Act had sufficient powers to permit such a deduction. In taking this view, the Division Bench relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd Vs CIT (199 ITR 351 to hold that the Appellate Authorities under the IT Act have very wide powers while considering an appeal which may be filed by the Assessee. The Appellate Authorities may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or remand the case to the Assessing Officer. This is because, unlike an ordinary appeal, the basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the Assessee in accordance with law. 40. The decision in Goetze (supra) upon which reliance is placed by the ITAT also makes it clear that the issue involved in the said case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the powers of the ITAT under section 254 of the said Act. This means that in Goetze (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was not dealing with the extent of the powers of the appellate authorities but the observations were in relation to the powers of the assessing authority. This is the distinction drawn by the division Bench in Pruthvi Brokers (supra) as well and this is the distinction which the ITAT failed to note in the impugned order. 41. Besides, we note that in the present case, though the claim for deduction was not raised in the original return or by filing revised ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 20 return, the Appellant – Assessee had indeed addressed a letter claiming such deduction before the assessment could be completed. However, even if we proceed on the basis that there was no obligation on the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for deduction in such letter, the Commissioner ( Appeals ) or the ITAT, before whom such deduction was specifically claimed was duty bound to consider such claim. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with Ms. Linhare's contention based upon the decision in Goetze (supra ). 42. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the substantial question of law No.(iii) in Tax Appeal No.17 of 2013 and the sole substantial question of law in Tax Appeal No.18 of 2013 is also required to be answered in favour of the Appellant – Assessee and against the Respondent-Revenue. To that extent therefore, the impugned judgments and orders made by the ITAT warrant interference and modification 43. Thus, we answer all the three substantial questions of law framed in Tax Appeal No.17 of 2013 in favour of the Appellant – Assessee and against the Respondent -Revenue. Similarly, we answer the sole substantial question of law framed in Tax Appeal No.18 of 2013, in favour of the Appellant – Assessee and against the Respondent – Revenue. 44. The impugned judgments and orders made by the ITAT are accordingly directed to be modified and necessary benefits extended to the Appellant – Assessee. 45. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.” 10 . 1 T he r e f o re , i n v i e w o f th e ju dg m e nt s o f t he H on' bl e B o m b ay H i gh Co u rt on t h e is s u e, w e al l ow t h e a d di t i o n a l g ro un d ra i se d b y t he a s s es s e e. 11 . 0 In th e fi n a l r es u lt , t h e a p pe al o f t he a s se s se e s t an ds al l ow e d . O rde r pr on ou nc e d o n 17. 0 1 . 2 0 22 . Sd/- Sd/- ( N. K. SAINI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Vice President Judicial Member Dated : 17.01.2022 ITA No. 205-Chd-2021 Ramjee Concretes Private Limited, Chandigarh 21 “आर.के .” आदेशक त,ल-पअ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकरआय ु /त/ CIT 4. आयकरआय ु /त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. -वभागीय त न2ध, आयकरअपील%यआ2धकरण, च4डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar