HArsoria Hospitality, Chandigarh V. ITO-Ward-5(1), Chandigarh

ITA 226/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2768 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA DHAR JCIT
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 43B; 143(1); 139(1); 43; 13; 6; 2; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., !' #! !$%, & ' $ BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, J M ITA NOS. 226/CHD/2021 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2019-20 HARSORIA HOSPITALITY C/O AJAY KUMAR JAIN, CA SCO 80-81, 4RH FLOOR SECTOR-17C CHANDIGARH ITO WARD 5(1) CHANDIGARH PAN NO: AAHFH2572H APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. PRIYANKA DHAR, JCIT $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 25/10/2021 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/10/2021 '(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT . 05/08/2021 OF THE LD. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 706790/- ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEE SHARE OF ESI AND EPF WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF ITR AND HE ALSO IGNORED THE J URISDICTIONAL PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DECISION IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS ) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 706790/- MADE BY CPC UNDER SECTI ON 143(1) ON DEBATABLE ISSUE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES OF PERMISSION TO ADD, A MEND, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITH APPROVAL OF THE HON'BLE BENC H. 3. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 706790/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENTS TOWARDS E PF AND ESI UNDER SECTION 2 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. W HEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN TO THE LD. CIT(A) THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED VIDE COMMON ORDER DA TED 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 SUPPO RTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. C IT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S 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 PAR AS 8 TO 10 IN ITA NOS.191&192/CHD/2021 IN CASE OF RAJA RAM VS. ITO, YA MUNANAGAR AS UNDER:- 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASES, IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDEN TICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT, JODHPUR B ENCH 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 P ARTIES 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 SE CTION 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. 3 8.1 IDENTICAL ISSUE WITH THE SIMILAR FACTS HAVE ALR EADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE ITAT. 8.2 IN THE CASE OF HARENDRANATHBISWASVS DCIT KOLTAK A, ITA NO. 186/KOL/2021 FOR THE A.Y. 2019-20, SIMILAR ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 16.7.2021 BY THE ITAT B BENCH, KOLKA TA. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 4 OF THE SAID ORDE R, 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 T HE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE EXPLANATION 5 WAS INSERTED B Y THE FINANCE ACT, 2021, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2021 AND RELEVANT ASSE SSMENT YEAR BEFORE US IS AY 2019-20. THEREFORE THE LAW LAID DOWN BY TH E JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE HIGH COURT WILL APPLY AND SINCE THIS EXPLAN ATION-5 HAS NOT BEEN MADE RETROSPECTIVELY. SO WE ARE INCLINED TO FO LLOW THE SAME AND WE REPRODUCE THE ORDER OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYSHREE LTD. SUPRA WHEREIN THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSION LTD. REPORTED IN 390 ITR 306. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS DECISION IN VIJAYSHREE LTD. SUPRA IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER: THIS APPEAL IS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 28TH APRIL, 2011 PASSED BY THE INCOM E TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, KOLKATA IN ITA NO. 1091/KOL/20 10 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BY WHICH THE TRIBUNAL DISMI SSED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A ). THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHE THER THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONT RIBUTION TO ESI AND PF BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(V A) 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, H ELD THAT THE DELETION WAS JUSTIFIED. BEING DISSATISFIED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH TH E PRESENT APPEAL. AFTER HEARING MR.SINHA, LEARNED ADVOCATE, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DECISION OF T HE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ALOM EXTRUSION LTD., WE FIND THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE H AS 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 CURATI VE 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 DEDUCTI BLE BY INVOKING THE AFORESAID AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 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. 4 URGENT XEROX CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDER, IF APPLI ED FOR, BE SUPPLIED TO THE PARTIES SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUISIT E 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 HONBLE HIGH COURT IN VIJAYSHREE LT D. (SUPRA) U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT SINCE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED T HE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION BEFORE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS AND WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITAT HYDERAB AD SMC BENCH IN ITA NO. 644/HYD./2020 FOR THE AY 2019-20 IN THE CA SE 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 ASSESSEES AND REVENUES 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 COR RESPONDING STATUTES; RESPECTIVELY. I NOTICE IN THIS FACTUAL BA CKDROP THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT ONLY INCORPORATED NECESSARY AME NDMENTS IN SECTIONS 36(VA) AS WELL AS 43B VIDE FINANCE ACT, 20 21 TO THIS EFFECT BUT ALSO THE CBDT HAS ISSUED MEMORANDUM OF 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 CONT RIBUTIONS; DISALLOWANCES U/S 43B AS AGAINST EMPLOYEE U/S 36 (V A) OF THE ACT; RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THA T THE SAME HAS BEEN CLARIFIED TO BE APPLICABLE ONLY WITH PROSPECTI VE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2021, I HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF ALL THESE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS EVEN IF THE R EVENUES 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 (2 014) 366 ITR 170 (GUJ.) (III) CIT VS. SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. (2000) 242 I TR 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 TRIBUNA L VIDE ORDER DATED 12.8.2021 IN THE CASE OF MOHANGARH ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JODHPUR & OTHERS VS CPC, BANGL ORE IN ITA NO. 5/JODH/2021 AND OTHERS HELD VIDE PARA 13 TO 18 AS U NDER:- 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETA ILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF ITS RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS NOTED THAT THE 5 ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE EMPLOYEESS 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 W HEREAS DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YE AR 2019-20 WAS 31.10.2019 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALSO FILED ON THE SAID DATE. ADMITTEDLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY, THE EMPLOYEESS CONTR IBUTION TO ESI AND PF WHICH HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM I TS EMPLOYEES HAVE THUS BEEN DEPOSITED WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE O F FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. 14. THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN LIGHT OF SE RIES OF DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT STARTI NG FROM CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR (SUPRA) AND SUBSEQUE NT DECISIONS. 15. IN THIS REGARD, WE MAY REFER TO THE INITIAL DEC ISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER EXTENSIVELY EX AMINING THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT AND VARIOUS OTHER HIGH COURTS HAS DECIDED THE MATTE R IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID DECISION, THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT WAS PLEASED TO HELD AS UNDER: 20. ON PERUSAL OF SEC.36(1)(VA) AND SEC.43(B)(B) AN D ANALYZING THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED, IN OUR VIEW AS WELL, IT IS CLEA R 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 LIABIL ITY OF PAYMENT OF DUES, AS AFORESAID; AND RIGHTLY SO AS ON THE ONE HA ND 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 CLAI MED 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 ACTI VITIES AND WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF A LLIED 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 FR OM 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 EXPLANATI ON 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 ADMI SSIBLE AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING RETURN OF THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 13 9 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 AL SO CLEAR THAT SEC.43B STARTS WITH A NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE & WOULD THUS O VERRIDE 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 GRO SS INCOME FOR PAYMENT OF TAX AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 IS 6 PERMISSIBLE ONLY IF THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF PAYM ENT OF PF OR OTHER CONTRIBUTION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) ARE PAID WIT HIN THE DUE DATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE ENACTMENTS BY THE ASSESSEES AN D NOT UNDER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. 22. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT TILL THIS PROVISI ON WAS BROUGHT IN AS THE DUE AMOUNTS ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER WERE NO T BEING DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEES THOUGH SUBSTANTIAL BENEF ITS HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THEM IN THE SHAPE OF THE AMOUNT HAVING BEEN CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION BUT THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE NOT DEPOSI TED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE RESPECTIVE ACT SUCH AS P F ETC. ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNTS CAN BE PAID LATER ON SUBJECT TO PA YMENT OF INTEREST AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES AND TO GET BENEFIT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, AN ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE ACTUALLY DEPOSITED T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS ALSO TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING SUCH DEPOSIT O N OR BEFORE THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 1 39 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 A CT BUT BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1), CANNO T BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B OR UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE IT ACT. 16. THE SAID DECISION HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN FOLLOWE D IN CIT VS. JAIPUR VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA), CIT VS. UDA IPUR DUGDHUTPADAKSAHAKARISANGH LTD. (SUPRA), AND CIT VS RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTATION LIMITED (SUPRA). IN ALL THE SE DECISIONS, IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT WHERE THE PF AND ESI DU ES ARE PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE STATUES BUT BEFOR E FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1), THE SAME CAN NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF TH E ACT. 17. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPUTED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT BUT HAS DECIDED TO FOLLOW THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE DEL HI, MADRAS, GUJARAT AND KERALA HIGH COURTS. GIVEN THE DIVERGENT VIEWS TAKEN BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FA CT THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER LIES WITH T HE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) O UGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED AND FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, AS EVIDENT FROM SERIES OF DECISIONS REF ERRED SUPRA, AS THE SAME IS BINDING ON ALL THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER ITS JURISDICTION IN THE STATE OF RAJA STHAN. 18. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND IN THE ENT IRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION BY WAY OF A DJUSTMENT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 143(1) AMOUNTIN G TO RS 4,38,530/- SO MADE BY THE CPC TOWARDS THE DELAYED DEPOSIT OF T HE EMPLOYEESS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI AND PF THOUGH PAID WELL BE FORE 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 S ECTION 43B READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE BI NDING DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. 7 11. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES ARE IDENTI CAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASES, THEREF ORE 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 FILIN G OF THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, IN BOTH THE YEARS UND ER CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 202 1 W.E.F. 1.4.2021 VIDE EXPLANATION 5, ARE DELETED. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE ALLOWED. 10. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRE D TO ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE DISALLOWANCES SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE DELETED. 8. SINCE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDE NTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF RAJA RAM VS. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR (SUPRA). SO RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL, THE DISALLOWANCES SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25/10/2021 ) SD/- SD/- #! !$% .., (VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( N.K. S AINI) & '$/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 25/10/2021 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE