Vrundavan Enterprises, Daund V. Additional Director of income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 483/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3836 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154; 2; 43B; 139; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.482 & 483/PUN/2021 नधा रण वष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Vrundavan Enterprises, House No.60532, Gajanan Krupa, Shankar Chowk, Shivajinagar, Daund – 413801 PAN : AANFV1748F Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders dated 20-09-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. These appeals involve a solitary issue of the confirmation of disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of Act. Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 24-06-2022 Date of pronouncement 24-06-2022 ITA Nos.482 & 483/PUN/2021 Vrundavan Enterprises 2 For the sake of convenience, we proceed to dispose them off by this consolidated order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts for the A.Y. 2018-19 are that the Assessing Officer (AO) issued intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, he took recourse to the proceedings u/s 154 and made the disallowance of Rs.9,61,060/- on the ground that the assessee late deposited the employees’ share of EPF/ESI. The facts for the A.Y. 2019-20 are that the AO made disallowance u/s 143(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.19,39,156/- u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowances. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal for the two assessment years under consideration. 3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee did deduct EPF and ESI from the employees’ share for both the years and deposited the same with exchequer a little bit late on some occasions after the due date under the respective legislations but before the time stipulated for filing returns u/s 139(1) of the Act. In our opinion, this issue is no more res integra in view of several judgments allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of employees’ share ITA Nos.482 & 483/PUN/2021 Vrundavan Enterprises 3 of contribution deposited after due date under the respective Acts but before the date prescribed u/s 139 of the Act. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 327 (HP) has held that there exists no difference between employees or employer’s contribution and both are to be allowed as deduction if deposited before the due date. 4. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Explanation 2 below section 36(1)(va) providing that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply for the purpose of determining the due date under this clause w.e.f. 01.04.2021. The effect of this amendment is that if the amount of employees’ contribution towards EPF, ESI, etc is delayed by an employer beyond the due date under the respective Acts, the disallowance will be called for notwithstanding the fact that it was deposited before the due date u/s 139 of the Act. The Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2021, provides that this amendment will take effect from 1 st April, 2021 and will, accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 2021- 2022 and subsequent assessment years. Since the assessment years under consideration, namely, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are ITA Nos.482 & 483/PUN/2021 Vrundavan Enterprises 4 anterior to the amendment carried out with effect from A.Y. 2021-22, we hold that the position of law as set out by various Hon’ble High Courts including the one in CIT vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant appeals, thereby not warranting any disallowance since the amounts in question were admittedly deposited before due dates u/s 139(1) of the Act for both the years. The additions are, therefore, directed to be deleted. 5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 24 th June, 2022 सतीश ITA Nos.482 & 483/PUN/2021 Vrundavan Enterprises 5 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. 3. थ / The Respondent The NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT concerned 5. 6. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 24-06-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 24-06-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *