Satish Jaynarayan Mundada, Pune V. Central Proceedings Centre (CPC), Bangalore

ITA 495/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4150 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43B; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.495/PUN/2021 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satish Jaynarayan Mundada Gat No.169, Khalad, Purander, Pune – 412301 PAN : ABBPM0221B .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/s. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasanani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 23-06-2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23-06-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28-09-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2019-20. 2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set 2 ITA No.495/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2019-20 ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to hear the Ld. DR and pass order on the basis of material evidence on record. 3. The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the disallowance made by the CPC, Bangalore on account of delay in depositing employees‟ contribution to PF/ESI in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. We note that the AO, CPC disallowed Rs.83,193/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), it was contended that the said amount was paid before filing of return of income u/s 139(1) and no disallowance is warranted. The CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance by holding that the provisions u/s 43B are not applicable. It is not disputed by the ld. DR that the said employees‟ contributions to PF/ESI were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, which is also evident from para No.5 of impugned order. We note that Explanation (1) was inserted to clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021, wherein the definition of due date is defined making it clear that the assessee is required as an employer to credit employees‟ contribution to the employees account in the relevant fund under any Act, Rule, Order or Notification issued therein or under any Standing order, Award, Contract of service or otherwise. Admittedly, the assessment year under consideration is 2019-20 and in our opinion, the said amendment by way of Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 is not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance as confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified. 3 ITA No.495/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2019-20 Thus, it is set aside by holding that the assessee is entitled to get deduction. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 rd June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददनधंक / Dated : 23 rd June, 2022. GCVSR आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The NFAC, Delhi 4. The concerned CIT, Pune 5. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ा फ़धइल / Guard File. //True Copy// आदेशधनपसधर / BY ORDER, वरिष्ठ निजी सनिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकि अपीलीय अनिकिण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune