Arham Constrotech P Ltd, Nashik V. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 398/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5622 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण“ए”न्यायपीठपुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपऩलसं. / ITA No.398/PUN/2021 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Arham Constrotech Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Manisha, Asha Nagar, Near N R DVS Bank, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101 PAN: AAFCA7025H Vs Asst. Director of I.T., CPC, Bengaluru Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 14/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, dated 27.08.2021 emanating out of proceedings under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called as „the Act‟) for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 77,300/- u/s 36(1)(va) by disregarding the fact that disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is beyond the scope of section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is prayed to delete the disallowance of Rs.77,300/-. ITA No.398/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 Arham Constrotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore 2 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 77,300/- u/s 36(1)(va) by disregarding the fact that employees contribution to provident fund and ESIC has been deposited before due date of filling return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence allowable as deduction u/s.43B of the Act. Therefore, it is prayed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 77,300/-. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.77,300/- u/s 36(1)(va) by disregarding the fact that his honour has deleted the similar disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) in other case of M/s Star Packers (PAN: AAPFS5980E ) for A.Y.2019-20. Same authority cannot have two different views on same matter. Therefore, it is prayed to delete the disallowance of Rs.77,300/-. 4. Your appellant craves for addition to, deletion, alteration, modification, change in any of the grounds of appeal mentioned above. 5. Your appellant requests to grant stay for the penalty proceedings and the outstanding demand till the disposal of this appeal. 2. In the present appeal, the question involved is allowability of employees‟ contribution of ESIC and PF, which was deposited beyond time mentioned in the respective Statutes but before filing income tax return u/s 139(1) of the Act. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee. We heard ld. DR, perused the records. In this case, the ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru vide an order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 30.04.2020 disallowed an amount of Rs.77,304/- by giving following reasons: ITA No.398/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 Arham Constrotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore 3 “Any sum received from employees as contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under ESI Act or any other fund for the welfare of employees to the extent not credited to the employees account on or before the due date [36(1)(va)]”. 4. From the plain reading of the order u/s 143(1), it is not clear whether any opportunity was provided before making the disallowance by the ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru. As it is mentioned in the order “Please refer to this office communication dated and 06- DEC-19 sent to the email ID and [e-mail]. As there has been no response/the response given is not acceptable the adjustments(s) as mentioned below are being made to the total income as per the provisions of section 143(1)(a).” Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd vide order dated 4/8/216 has held as under: Quote “This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far as payment of PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. ITA No.398/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 Arham Constrotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore 4 State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com” Unquote 6. The SLP filed against the said decision has been dismissed by Hon‟ble SC. 7. Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court held in the case of CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd, IT APPEAL NOS. 1002 & 1034 OF 2012 vide order dated 14/10/2014 as under : Quote , “ In this manner, the amendment provided by Finance Act, 2003 put on par the benefit of deductions of tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand with contributions to various Employees' Welfare Funds on the other. All this came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal in the case at hand relied upon the said judgment. There is no reason to fault the order passed by the Tribunal. We are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) applies to employees' contribution as well as employers' contribution. Question Nos.2, 3 & 4 are accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. ” Unquote. Thus respectfully following the Hon‟ble High Courts it is held that the payment of employee‟s contribution beyond the due date ITA No.398/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 Arham Constrotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore 5 mentioned in the relevant statute but before the due date of filling the return of income u/s 139(1) is allowable expenditure. 8. In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19 th September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 19 th September, 2022 GCVSR आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The concerned CIT(A). 4. The concerned Pr. CIT. 5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्,आयकरअपऩलऩयअनर्करण, “ए” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपऩलऩयअनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. ITA No.398/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2019-20 Arham Constrotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore 6 S.No Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 15.09.2022 Sr. PS/PS 2 Final Draft placed before author 15.09.2022 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order