AJAY PIPLANI,AMBALA CANTT vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, the disallowance for the impugned year (2019-20) based on these amendments cannot be sustained.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction for delayed payments of employees' contribution to ESI and PF. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, relying on amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF paid after the due date specified in the respective Acts, but before the due date for filing the return of income, is valid for Assessment Year 2019-20 in light of the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hemla Embroidery Mills P. Ltd.400 citing366 ITR 167 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA
(Hearing through webex) आदेश/ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [(in short the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 29.04.2021 A.Y. 2019-20 Page 2 of 6 relating to assessment year 2019-20, passed u/s 250 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).
The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee in the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act, by disallowing delayed payments of employees contribution to ESI and PF amounting to Rs.18,21,088/- by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(v) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition on the basis of the amendment effected by the Finance Act, 2021, to section 43B of the Act by insertion of Explanation- 5 and to section 36(1)(va) of the Act by insertion of Explanation-2, both to the effect that due date for payment of employees’ contribution to ESI and PF, for the purpose of claiming deduction of the said amount as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act was not governed by section 43B stipulating the due date to be till the filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, meaning thereby the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF was to be paid by due date specified in their respective Acts for the purpose of claiming deduction thereof. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the said amendment though effected by the Finance Act, 2021 but A.Y. 2019-20 Page 3 of 6 when read in the background of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 91 Taxman, 205 (SC), and the intention of the Legislature set out through the Memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 while introducing the Explanations to the sections, made it clear that the said amendments would apply to all pending matters as on date. Accordingly, he brushed aside the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the issue already stood decided in its favour by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore applying the amendments to section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of employers’ contribution to ESI and PF not paid before the due date specified in the said Acts.
Before us the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that various Benches of the ITAT have already adjudicated this issue in favour of the assessee. He referred to the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Insta Exhibition Pvt. Ltd Vs. Addl.CIT in dated 03.08.2021, the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Crescent Roadways Pvt. Ltd; Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1952/Hyd/2018, dated 01.07.2021 and the decision of A.Y. 2019-20 Page 4 of 6 ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Hotel Surya Vs. DCIT in & 134/Chd/2021, dated 05.08.2021. Copy of the orders was placed before us.
The Ld. DR was unable to bring any contrary judgment to our notice, nor was any distinguishing facts brought to our notice. He however relied on the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties. It is not denied that the employees contribution to ESI and PF was allowable and claimed as deduction by the assessee on the strength of various decisions of the jurisdictional High Court holding contributions deposited by the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act as allowable. The Revenue has disallowed the same in the impugned year by applying the amendment made by Finance Act 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act allowing the claim of such deduction only when paid by due dates specified in their respective Acts, holding the amendment to be applicable on all pending cases post the amendment.
We have gone through the orders of the coordinate Benches of the ITAT cited by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us and have noted that it has been consistently held A.Y. 2019-20 Page 5 of 6 that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and u/s 43B of the Act effected by the Finance Act 2021 is applicable prospectively ,reading from the Notes on Clauses at the time of introduction of the Finance Act, 2021, specifically stating the amendment being applicable in relation to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent years. Therefore the addition, we hold, cannot be made on the strength of the amendment effected by Finance Act 2021 to section 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act. Moreover it is an admitted position that the jurisdictional High Court has in various decisions held that employees contribution to ESI & PF is allowable if paid by the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act.
The jurisdictional High Court has held so in the following cases:
1) CIT Vs. Nuchem Limited, of 2009 2) CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd.(2014), 366 ITR 167 7. In view of the above, we hold that the claim of employees contribution to ESI and PF as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be denied in the impugned year, i.e. 2019-20 on the basis of amendment made to the section by Finance Act 2021. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) upholding the said disallowance to the tune of Rs.18,21,088/- is A.Y. 2019-20 Page 6 of 6 therefore set aside and the AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee..
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 4 th October, 2021.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026