DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LTD., JAIPUR V. ACIT-C-6, JAIPUR

ITA 53/JPR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6016 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH NEHRA JCIT A
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment
• Section: 43B; 143(1); 139(1); 43; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 53/JP/2021 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2019-20 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED B 9D 1, MALVIYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR-302017. CUKE VS. THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACCD 5090 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHAN SOGANI (C.A.) & SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (C.A) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHISH NEHRA (JCIT) A LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 13/09/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/09/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DELHI (NFAC) DATED 28.05.2021 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2019- 20 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE L D. AO, IN MAKING ADJUSTMENTS IN THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 143(1)(A). THE A CTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAIN ST THE FACTS OF THE ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 2 CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,15,855/-. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. A O, IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,15,855/- IN RESPECT OF ESIC AND PF U/S 36(1)(VA) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF TH E LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,15,855/-. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.10.2019 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S. 3,87,67,430/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND IN TERMS OF INTI MATION DATED 18.06.2020 ISSUED BY CPC, IT MADE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 21,15,855/- TOWARDS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI AND PF. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A), NFAC HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/ S 143(1) ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES FAILURE TO PAY THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PF/ESI WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATES AS PER SECTI ON 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DEPOSITED EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PF/ESI THOUGH WITH A DELAY OF FEW DAYS FROM THE DUE DATES MENTION ED IN THE RESPECTIVE ACTS, HOWEVER THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED WEL L BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE SAID FACT IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE AND WHERE SUCH CONTRIBUTION HAS B EEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCO ME, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE AND IN SUPPORT , RELIANCE WAS ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 3 PLACED ON THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. (2017) 3 92 ITR 2 AND CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR (2014) 43 TAXM ANN.COM 411. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RECENTLY JAIPUR BENC HES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW IN CASE OF SOHAN LAL TAMBI VS. ITO (IN ITA NO. 40/JP/2021 DATED 16.08.2021) AND K.P. AIRTECH VS. DCIT (IN ITA NO. 41 &42/JP/2021 DATED 16.08.2021 ). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION ADDED TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT B Y THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2021 AND WILL APPLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT Y EARS AND NOT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE ADJUSTMENT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADJUSTMENT SO MADE B Y THE CPC AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) NFAC MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER DE TAILS FURNISHED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CON TRIBUTION OF PF/ESI AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,15,855/- WAS NOT MADE WITHIN T HE PRESCRIBED DUE DATE U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT AND SINCE THESE AMOUN T WERE NOT DISALLOWED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE VARIANCE BETWEEN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND ITR HAS BEEN DULY FLAGGED BY THE CPC IN THE COMPUTERIZED PROCESSING AND DISALLOWANCE U/ S 143(1)(A)(IV) ON THE BASIS OF FACT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MAD E WHICH CLEARLY FAILS WITHIN AMBIT OF PRIMA FACIE ADJUSTMENT TO BE CARRI ED OUT U/S 143(1)(A)(IV) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS PLA CED ON THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 WHERE IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) HAS BEEN INTRODUCE D. IT WAS SUBMITTED ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 4 FROM THE SAID AMENDMENT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LAW IS AND HAS ALWAYS VERY CLEAR I.E. EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO SPECIFIE D FUND WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VA) IF THERE IS DEL AY IN DEPOSIT EVEN BY A SINGLE DAY AS PER THE DUE DATES MENTIONED IN THE RESPECTIVE LEGISLATION. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE AMENDMENTS A RE ONLY DECLARATORY/CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND ARE THEREFO RE, APPLICABLE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT BY NECESSARY INTENDMENT OF DEE MING NATURE EXPRESSLY STATED THEREIN. THE LD. DR ACCORDINGLY SU BMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE UNAMBIGUOUS WORDING OF THE NOW AMENDED PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 36(1) AND 43B, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONT RIBUTION CAN BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION ONLY IF IT HAD BEEN PAID WIT HIN THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATES UNDER THE RELEVANT WELFARE FUNDS AND THIS POSITION OF LAW IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE AND THE CLARIFICATION BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE AMENDMENT CLEARLY APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY. IT WAS THE REFORE RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 143 (1) OF THE ACT BY CPC ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES FAILURE TO PAY THE EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PF/ESI WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DUE DATES AS PER SE CTION 36(1)(VA) IS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND CLEARLY COMES U NDER THE PRIMA FACIE ADJUSTMENTS AS ENVISAGED U/S 143(1)(A)(IV) OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN CASE OF K.P AIRTECH VS DCIT (SUPRA), WE HAVE EXTENSIVELY DEALT WITH THE IDENTICAL MATTER RELATIN G TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI/PF AND OUR FINDINGS THEREI N READ AS UNDER: 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE AUD IT REPORT ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 5 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE EMPLOYEES 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 14.04.2018 WHEREAS DUE DATE OF FILING THE R ETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 WAS 31.10.2018 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALSO ACTUALLY FILED ON THE SAI D DATE. ADMITTEDLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY, THE EMPLOYEES CONTRI BUTION TO ESI AND PF WHICH HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM ITS EMPLOYEES HAVE THUS BEEN DEPOSITED WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. T HE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN LIGHT OF SERIES OF DECISIONS RE NDERED BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT STARTING FROM CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR (SUPRA) AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS. 17. IN THIS REGARD, WE MAY REFER TO THE INITIAL DEC ISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. STA TE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFT ER EXTENSIVELY EXAMINING THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DE CISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND VARIOUS OTHER HIGH COURTS HAS DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN T HE SAID DECISION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS PLEASED TO HEL D AS UNDER: 20. ON PERUSAL OF SEC.36(1)(VA) AND SEC.43(B)(B) A ND ANALYZING THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED, IN OUR VIEW AS WE LL, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE S ECTION 43(B)(B) TO CURB THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TAX PAYERS WHO DID NOT DISCHARGE THEIR STATUTORY LIABILITY OF PAYMENT OF DUES, AS ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 6 AFORESAID; AND RIGHTLY SO AS ON THE ONE HAND CLAIM WAS BEING MADE UNDER SECTION 36 FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCT ION OF GPF, CPF, ESI ETC. AS PER THE SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY TH E ASSESSEES IN CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION I.E. ACCRUAL BA SIS AND THE SAME WAS BEING ALLOWED, AS THE LIABILITY DID EX IST BUT THE SAID AMOUNT THOUGH CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION WAS N OT BEING DEPOSITED EVEN AFTER LAPSE OF SEVERAL YEARS. THEREFORE, TO PUT A CHECK ON THE SAID CLAIMS/DEDUCT IONS HAVING BEEN MADE, THE SAID PROVISION WAS BROUGHT IN TO CURB THE SAID ACTIVITIES AND WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). 21. A CONJOINT READING OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 43 -B WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1987 MADE EFFECTIV E FROM 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, 200 3 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 EXPLAN ATION APPENDED TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT FURTHER EN VISAGE THAT THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE ADMISSIBLE AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING R ETURN OF THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DE DUCTION OUT OF THEIR GROSS TOTAL INCOME. IT IS ALSO CLEAR T HAT SEC.43B STARTS WITH A NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE & WOULD THUS O VERRIDE ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 7 SEC.36(1) (VA) AND IF READ IN ISOLATION SEC. 43B WO ULD BECOME OBSOLETE. ACCORDINGLY, CONTENTION OF COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE IS NOT TENABLE FOR THE REASON AFORESAID THA T DEDUCTIONS OUT OF THE GROSS INCOME FOR PAYMENT OF T AX AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY IF THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF PAYM ENT OF PF OR OTHER CONTRIBUTION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) ARE PA ID WITHIN THE DUE DATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE ENACTMENTS BY THE ASSESSEES AND NOT UNDER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF R ETURN. 22. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT TILL THIS PROVISI ON WAS BROUGHT IN AS THE DUE AMOUNTS ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER WERE NOT BEING DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEES THOUGH SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THEM IN T HE SHAPE OF THE AMOUNT HAVING BEEN CLAIMED AS A DEDUCT ION BUT THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE NOT DEPOSITED. IT IS PERT INENT TO NOTE THAT THE RESPECTIVE ACT SUCH AS PF ETC. ALSO P ROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNTS CAN BE PAID LATER ON SUBJECT TO PA YMENT OF INTEREST AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES AND TO GET BENEF IT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, AN ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE ACTUALLY DEPOSITED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS ALSO TO ADD UCE EVIDENCE REGARDING SUCH DEPOSIT ON OR BEFORE THE RE TURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 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 RES PECTIVE ACT BUT BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 8 139(1), CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B OR U NDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE IT ACT. 18. THE SAID DECISION HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN FOLLOWE D IN CIT VS. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. 363 ITR 307, CI T VS. UDAIPUR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD. 366 ITR 163, CIT VS RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORTATION LIMITED (SUP RA) AND PCIT VS RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION LTD. IN ALL THESE DECISIONS, IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT WHERE THE PF AND ESI DUES ARE PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE UNDER THE RESPECTI VE STATUES BUT BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1), THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B READ WI TH SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. 19. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPUTED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND VARIOUS OTHER HIGH COURTS INCLUDING HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS AIMIL LTD 321 ITR 508 WHICH WERE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE BY THE LD AR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS BUT HAS DECIDED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( SUPRA). GIVEN THE DIVERGENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT AS AGAINST CONSISTENT VIEW OF OTHER HIGH COURTS INCLUD ING THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND THE FACT THAT THE JURISDIC TION OVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE LIES WITH THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE L D CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED AND FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, AS EVIDENT FROM SERIES OF DEC ISIONS REFERRED ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 9 SUPRA, IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE SAME IS BINDING O N ALL THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER ITS JURISDICTION IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 20. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND IN THE ENT IRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 143(1) AM OUNTING TO RS 1,25,431/- SO MADE BY THE CPC TOWARDS THE DELAYED D EPOSIT OF THE EMPLOYEESS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI AND PF THO UGH PAID WELL BEFORE 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 CA NNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B READ WITH SECTION 36(1 )(VA) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE BINDING DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. 21. GIVEN THAT WE HAVE ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE WHEREBY WE HAVE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE, THE OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO ADJUSTMENT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ISSUE OF INTIMATION U/S 14 3(1) BY CPC HAS BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. 6. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ADMITTEDLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY , THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESI AND PF COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM ITS EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FIL ING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) AN D SECTION 43B INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 AND HAS ALSO RE FERRED TO THE ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 10 RATIONALE OF THE AMENDMENT AS EXPLAINED BY THE MEMO RANDUM IN THE FINANCE BILL, 2021, HOWEVER, HE HAS SIMPLY FAILED T O CONSIDER THE EXPRESS WORDINGS IN THE SAID MEMORANDUM WHICH SAYS THESE AMENDMENTS WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2021 AND WILL ACCORDINGLY APPLY TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2021-22 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 AND THER EFORE, THE SAID AMENDMENT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 7. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION REFERRED SUPRA, THE ADDITION BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 143(1) AMOUNTING TO RS 21,15,855/- SO MA DE BY THE CPC TOWARDS THE DEPOSIT OF THE EMPLOYEESS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI AND PF THOUGH PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/09/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 15/09/2021. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU. ITA NO. 53/JP/2021 DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED VS. ADIT 11 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 53/JP/2021} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR