DCIT, JAIPUR V. M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, Jaipur

ITA 276/JPR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1580 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43B; 54B; 143(1)

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 276/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 The DCIT Circle-6 Jaipur cuke Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. R.C. Dave Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCR 7436 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 23/08/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29 /08/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal by the Department is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 19-05-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2019-20 wherein the Department has solitary ground as under:- ‘’Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,52,50,269/- u/s 26(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act on account delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESI.’’ 2 ITA NO. 276/JP/2022 – DCIT, CIR-6, JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the AO (CPC), Bengaluru during the course of processing the return of the assessee u/s 143(1) noted that the assessee had received sums from employees as contribution towards PF and ESI amounting to Rs.2,52,50,269/- which were deposited late as per the respective Acts. However, the assessee had deposited the amount of Rs.2,52,50,269/- before the due date of filing the return. In this view of the matter, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.2,52,50,269/- deposited late by the assessee on account of employees PF/ESI contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act . 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.2,52,50,269/- made by the AO u/s 36(1)(va) by observing as under:- ‘’4.3 I have carefully considered the written submission of the appellant and ratio of judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. As per the ratio of judgements relied upon, no disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is called for on account of employees contribution in respect of PF and ESI if the same is deposited before the due date of filing of ITR. 4.4 Further, it is noted that recently different Benches of the ITAT have held in a plethora of decisions that amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) by insertion of Explanation 2 and the amendment to Section 43B by inserting Explanation 5 is prospective in nature and are applicable from 01-04-2021. In this regard, reliance is placed 3 ITA NO. 276/JP/2022 – DCIT, CIR-6, JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. inter alia upon the following decisions of the different benches of Hon’ble ITAT. (a) Flying Fabrications vs DCIT (2021) 132 Taxmann.com 84 dated 17-11-2021 (b) Shri Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar Vs ADIT, CPC, Bengallure in ITA No. 359/Bang/2021 dated 13/10/2021 (ITAT, Banglore) © Bevel Gears (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), ,Bengaloure in ITA No. 376/Bang/2021 dated 11/10/2021 (ITAT Bengalore) (d) Shri Harendra Nath Biswas vs DCIT, Circle-29, Kolkata dated 16-07-2021 (e) Mohan Ram Choudhary vs ITO in ITA No. 51/Jodh/2021 dated 28-09-2021 (ITAT-Jodhpur) (f) Value Momentum Software Services (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-17 (2) Hyderabad in ITA No. 2197/Hyd/2017 dated 15/- 09-202. (g) Jai Enterprises vs DCIT, ITA No.248/JP/2021-ITAT Jaipur dated 25-11-2021 h) Mavinahalli Shivanjappa Vijay Kumar Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang. 2021 ITAT, Banggalore dated 13-12- 2021 (i) M/s. Salzgitter Hydrulics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No./Hyd/ 2020 ITAT Hyderabad dated 15.06.2021 (j) M/s Mahadev Cold Storage vs Jurisdictional AO, ITA No. 41 &42/Agra/2021 ITAT Agra dated 14.06.2021 (k) S.V. Engineering Construction India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 30/Viz/2021 ITAT Visakhapatnam dated 23.09.2021 (l) Suba Singh vs. ITO, ITA No. 85/Asr/2021 ITAT Amrisar dated 10.11.2021 (m) Lumino Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 231 & 365/Kol/2021 ITAT Kolkata 17.11.2021 (n) Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 71 & 72/Jodh/2021 ITAT Jodhpur dated 28.09.2021 4 ITA NO. 276/JP/2022 – DCIT, CIR-6, JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. (o) Nikhil Mohine vs. DCIT, ITA No. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 ITAT Jabalpur dated 18.11.2021 (p) Transzone Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.vs DCIT ITA No. 1739 & 1740/Del/2021 ITAT Delhi dated 29-10-2021 (q) Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT, ITA No. 402 & 403/CHNY/2021 ITAT Chennai dated 8-12- 2021 ( r ) Jagmohan Singh Vs DCIT, ITA Nos. 185 & 193/CHD/2021 ITAT Chandigarh dated 15-12-2021 (s) Inderjit Bajaj vs DCIT, Circle-1, Jalandhar (ITAT Amritsar) (t) Sagun Foundry 291 CTR 557 (All.) (u) Vinko Auto Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (supra) (v) DRP Metal Works (Regd.) vs ADIT (supra) and Sube Singh vs ITO, ITA No. 85/ASR/2021 Following the aforesaid decisions, the claim of the appellant is allowed. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.2,52,50,269/- made u/s 36(1)(va) is deleted and ground No. 1 of appeal is allowed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,52,50,269/- made by the AO u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act on account of late deposit of employees PF/ESI contribution by the assessee. 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). To this effect, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-6, 5 ITA NO. 276/JP/2022 – DCIT, CIR-6, JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. Jaipur in ITA No. 83 & 84/JP/2022 dated 19-04-2022. The relevant para No. 19 of this appeal allowing the ground by the Bench is reproduced as under:- ‘’19. By considering the totality of the facts and the various judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the amendment brought in the statue i.e. by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 54B of the Act amended by inserting Explanation 2 is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the amended provisions of Section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2018-19 but will apply assessment year 2021- 22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, this issue raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed.’’ 2.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record As regards the issue of late deposit of Employees contribution towards PF/ESI, it is noted from the available records that the Employees Contribution towards PF/ESI has been paid before the due date of filing of return. The Bench observed that the issue of late deposit of PF/ESI contribution by the assessee but before filing the due date of filing of the return, is covered by the decision of ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we respectfully concur 6 ITA NO. 276/JP/2022 – DCIT, CIR-6, JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. with the findings of this Bench on the issue of PF/ESI contribution and the order of the ld. CIT(A) is sustained. Thus the appeal of the Department is dismissed. 3. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/08/2022. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/08/2022 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- The DCIT, Ciorcle-6,Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. , Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 276/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar