Bengaluru International Group of Service, Bengaluru V. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 648/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5561 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISHRA
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 139; 143(1); 250; 139(1); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 648/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Bengaluru International Group of Service, Site No. 4 & 12, Sy.No. 96/1, Near South Ridge Apartment, Jakkur, Bangalore – 560 064. PAN: AALFB2496G Vs. The Assistant Director of Income tax, CPC, Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Prabhakar .K.R, CA Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee against the order dated 01.10.2021 u/s. 250 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2018-19 on following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (herein after called CIT(A), is opposed to law, evidences, probabilities and facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance amounting to Rs.79,99,158/- made by the Assistant Director of Income tax, CPC, Bengaluru, (AO for short) in respect of the claim towards employees' Page 2 of 7 ITA No. 648/Bang/2021 contribution to ESI and PF in the intimation passed by him u/s 143(1). 3. The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the AO was opposed to principles of natural justice. 4. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing the claim towards employees' contribution to ESI and PF, although they were paid within the due date for filing the return of income. 5. The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to notice that the Chartered Accountant who gave the Audit Report only mentions the due date and the date of payment of employees' contribution towards ESI and PF and does not indicate any disallowance of expenditure as contemplated in Section 143(1)(a)(iv). 6. The learned CIT(Appeals) overlooked the fact that AO did not "consider" the response given by the appellant, before making any adjustment and thus contravening the second proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 143, and consequently the disallowance is bad in law. 7. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court cited before him 8. The learned CIT(Appeas1) failed to look into the spirit of the decisions in the case of Spectrum Consultants and Sabari Enterprises, specifically quoted before him, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Department not to disallow any amount u/s 36(1)(va), if the contribution of employees towards ESI & PF are deposited within the due date for filing the return of income, even though the same have not been paid within the time allowed under the respective Acts. 9. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in interpreting that the amendments made by Finance Bill, 2021 has retrospective effect, ignoring the catena of decisions wherein it is held that the amendments is applicable only from the assessment year 2021-22 as stated in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2021. Page 3 of 7 ITA No. 648/Bang/2021 10. The learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have followed Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunals decision in ITA No 359/Bang/2021 dated 13 10.2021 in the case of Shri Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar, Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru wherein it is specifically held that the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless the legislature specifically says so. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 12. The appellant, therefore, prays that the Hon'ble ITAT be pleased to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals), direct the AO to delete the addition. accept the income returned and allow the appeal, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is in the business of maintenance of apartment complex. For the assessment year 2018-19, return of income was filed on 10.10.2018 declaring Rs. 99,54,605/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. In the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the CPC disallowed the employees' contribution to PF and ESI to the tune of Rs. 79,99,158/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee did not remit the employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due date specified under the respective Acts. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court Pr.CIT vs. Hind Filter Ltd. in ITA No. 662 of 2015. The assessee is entitled to deduction of the same. The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Gujarat Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between the employees' contribution and Page 4 of 7 ITA No. 648/Bang/2021 the employer's contribution and held insofar as the employees' contribution to ESI and PF, the same need to be remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in following cases:  M/s.The Continental Restaurant & Café Co. v. ITO in ITA No.388/Bang/2021 (order dated 11.10.2021)  M/s. Nirmal Enviro Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 315/Bang/2021 (order dated 12.10.2021)  Shri Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar vs. ACIT in ITA No. 359/Bang/2021 (order dated 13.10.2021) 5. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. An identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of The Continental Restaurant & Café Co. v. ITO (supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190 and ESI of Rs.16,055 totaling to Rs.1,22,245 before the due date specified under the respective Act. However, the assessee had paid the same before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions Page 5 of 7 ITA No. 648/Bang/2021 of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provisions u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act?" 7.1 In deciding the above substantial question of law, the Hon'ble High Court rendered the following findings:- "20. Paragraph-38 of the PF Scheme provides for Mode of payment of contributions. As provided in sub para (1), the employer shall, before paying the member, his wages, deduct his contribution from his wages and deposit the same together with his own contribution and other charges as stipulated therein with the provident fund or the fund under the ESI Act within fifteen days of the closure of every month pay. It is clear that the word "contribution" used in Clause (b) of Section 43B of the IT Act means the contribution of the employer and the employee. That being so, if the contribution is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act is made, the employer is entitled for deduction. 21. The submission of Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue that if the employer fails to deduct the employees' contribution on or before the due date, contemplated under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that as his income, deserves to be rejected. 22. With respect, we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. WE agree with the view taken by this Court in W.A.No.4077/2013. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law framed by us is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee would have been entitled to deduction of employees' contribution of PF and ESI if the payment was made prior to due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective in nature. Even otherwise, the amendment has been mentioned to be effective from 01.04.2021 and will apply for and from assessment year 2021-2022 onwards. The following orders of the Tribunal had categorically held Page 6 of 7 ITA No. 648/Bang/2021 that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services v. ACIT in ITA No.622/Del/2018 (order dated 27.08.2021). (iv) M/s.Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited v. DCIT in ITA No.307/Bang/2021 (order dated 11th October, 2021) 7.3 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncements cited supra, the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely A.Y. 2019-2020. Accordingly, I direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of employees' contribution to PF and ESI since the assessee has made payment before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6.1 We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2018-19. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of employees' contribution to PF and ESI since the assessee has made the payment before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31 st March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31 st March, 2022. /MS / Page 7 of 7 ITA No. 648/Bang/2021 Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore