Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6023 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
11 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-07-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2019-2020
Appeal Filed On
17-08-2021
Judgement Text
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायप ु र न्यायपीठ, रायप ु र IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश स ू द, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़विया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.64/RPR/2021 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-2020) Nanesh Projects, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Rd. Raipur-492001 Vs DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru PAN No. : AADFN 9947 J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Praveen Jain, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : None स ु निाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This appeal filed by the assessee has been directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.06.2021, for the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. None appeared on behalf of the revenue. An adjournment application has been filed by the revenue, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench proceeded to dispose off the appeal after rejecting the adjournment application filed by the department. 3. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is with regard to confirming the disallowance of Rs.2,16,046/- towards late payment of employees contribution to provident fund and ESI. ITA No.64/RPR/21 2 4. Ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the computation of income filed at page 59 of the paper book and submitted that that the assessee has already disallowed the amount of Rs.2,16,046/- u/s.43B of the Act. It was also submitted by the ld. AR that without considering the same, the AO has disallowed the same amount u/s.36 of the Act, which amounts to double taxation. Further the ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has ignored the submission made by the assessee wherein then entire details along with documentary evidence were submitted. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC) and submitted that since the entire payment pertaining to employee and employer contribution has been made before due date of filing of the return, no disallowance is also called for. 5. On perusal of the orders of the authorities below as well as the relevant documents filed before us in the form of paper book, we found that the assessee has suo moto disallowed the amount of contribution to the employees contribution fund u/s.43B of the Act and the same has also been disallowed by the AO u/s.36 of the Act, which also amounts to double taxation. Further, on perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we found that the payments of the employees contribution to PF & ESI having been made before the due date of filing of the return but after the due date as prescribed under the relevant statute. This issue has already been decided by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ind Synergy Limited in ITA No.312/RPR/2016, vide order dated 30.03.2022 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding ITA No.64/RPR/21 3 therein that the amendment made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., explanation 5 to section 43B and explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) are applicable w.e.f.01.04.2021 i.e. from A.Y.2021-22 onwards. Further, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd., in ITA No.205/RPR/2018, vide order dated 27.05.2022, has held the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the facts of the case that the amount has been deposited by the assessee before the due date of filling return of income. So far as employee’s contribution is concerned it is not governed by section 43B but by section 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). The Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pashupati Ispat Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.101/CTK/2021, vide order dated 06.04.2022 after discussing in detail and following the plethora of case laws, has held that it is not disputed that the payment of employees contribution to PF and ESI was made before filing of the return u/s.139(1) of the Act and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of delay in depositing the employees contribution to PF & ESI. 6. In view of the above judicial pronouncements as well as factual aspects, we are of the opinion that the payments of the employees contribution to PF & ESI having been made before the due date of filing of the return though admittedly after the due date as prescribed under the relevant statute, the same is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the said disallowance made against the assessee. ITA No.64/RPR/21 4 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/07/ 2022. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायप ु र/Raipur; ददनाांक Dated 18/07/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.(on tour) आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशाि ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायप ु र/ITAT, Raipur 1. अिीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, रायि ु र/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावित प्रयत //True Copy//
Mehul