Marappa Shivakumar, Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 696/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2196 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP CHALAPATHY
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 43B; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 696/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Marappa Shivakumar, No. 149, Old No. 1 of 53, 4 th Cross, Lalbhag Road, K S Garden, Bangalore – 560 027. PAN: BGVPS5989L Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 02-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee against the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2018-19 on following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of employees' contribution of Rs.79,68,450/- towards provident fund without considering the fact that the Page 2 of 6 ITA No. 696/Bang/2021 payment was made within the due date of filing the return of income. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2021 that the amendment is applicable from AY 2021-22. Additional Ground 4. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making disallowance u/s 43B of the Act even though such disallowance does not fall under the purview of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another, the appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify all or any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual and for year under consideration, return of income was filed on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 78,95,600/-. It was submitted that assessee had deposited sum of Rs. 79,68,455/- belatedly towards the PF & ESI account but before the due date specified u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 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.79,68,455/-. 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. Page 3 of 6 ITA No. 696/Bang/2021 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 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 Page 4 of 6 ITA No. 696/Bang/2021 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 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." Page 5 of 6 ITA No. 696/Bang/2021 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 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 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 Page 6 of 6 ITA No. 696/Bang/2021 have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2018-2019. 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. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02 nd February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 02 nd February, 2022. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore