Samarth Services, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 671/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1112 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.671/PUN/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Samarth Services, Kunal Market Building, Chaphekar Chowk, Chinchwad, Pune – 411033 PAN : ACJFS5292B .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुिवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 30-08-2022 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 01-09-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18-10-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘NFAC’) for assessment year 2019-20. 2 ITA No.671/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2019-20 2. The assessee raised six grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi justified in confirming the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act to an extent of Rs.32,88,647/- on account of employee’s contribution to ESIC/PF in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We note that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing manpower facility services. The CPC, Bangalore vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act made addition of Rs.32,88,647/- on account of disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) towards delayed payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund. The assessee contended that the employee’s contribution towards PF has been paid before the due date of filing of return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 but however the CPC, Bangalore as well as CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi did not accept the submissions of assessee and the CIT(A), NFAC held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction only if the contribution to the employee’s welfare fund stood credited on or before the due date under the respective Act. We note that the NFAC by following the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act found the submissions of assessee regarding deposit of employees contribution before the due date of filing return of income not acceptable. We note that the said amendment is applicable from 1 st April, 2021 and since the assessment under consideration is A.Y. 2019-20, the amendment is not applicable on the facts in hand. We note that the CIT(A) did not dispute the same and it is evident from the impugned order that the assessee paid the employee’s contribution towards provident fund before 3 ITA No.671/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2019-20 the due date of filing of Income Tax Return. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside. Thus, the assessee is entitled for deduction and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01 st September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददिांक / Dated : 01 st September, 2022. रधव आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधर्त / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. The CIT concerned. 5. धवभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्याधपत प्रधत// True Copy// आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ धिजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune