DIGIQAL SOLUTION SERVICES PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 176/CHANDI/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 October 2021AY 2019-206 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made based on these amendments for the assessment year 2019-20 was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction for delayed payment of ESI and PF. The AO disallowed this claim by invoking 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 amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are retrospective or prospective in application, and consequently, whether delayed payment of employee's contribution to ESI and PF is allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv
Hearing: 26.08.2021Pronounced: 04.10.2021

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 dated 25.05.2021 relating to A.Y. 2019-20 assessment year 2019-20, passed u/s 250 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).

2.

The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition made in the intimation made to the assessee on account of delayed payment of ESI and PF amounting to Rs.6,87,309/- by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(v)

of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition holding that the amendment effected by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 43B of the Act by insertion of Explanation-5 and 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 when read in the background of the decision of the Hon'ble A.Y. 2019-20 Taxman, 205 (SC), the intention of Legislature set out

through memorandum through the Finance Act while

introducing the Explanations to section 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 Juri ictional High

Court and applying the amendments to section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of the Act disallowed the employers’

contribution to ESI and pF not paid before the due date

specified in the said Acts.

3.

Before us 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, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Value

Momentum Software ; Vs. DCIT in ITA No.2197/Hyd/2017,

dated 19.05.2021 and the decision of ITAT Chandigarh

Bench in the case of Hotel Surya Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.133 &

134/Chd/2021, dated 05.08.2021. Copy of the orders was placed before us.

4.

The Ld. DR was unable to bring any contrary judgment

to our notice, nor was any distinguishing facts brought to A.Y. 2019-20 our notice. He however relied on the order of the CIT(A).

5.

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 juri ictional 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.

6.

Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.6941/Del/2017, 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, consistently holding

that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and u/s 43B of A.Y. 2019-20 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 juri ictional 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 juri ictional High Court has held so in the following

cases:

1) 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. 6,87,309/- is therefore set aside and the AO is directed to allow the claim A.Y. 2019-20 of the assessee..

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 4 th October 2021. संजय गग" अ"नपूणा" गु"ता (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) "याय"क सद"य/Judicial Member लेखा सद"य/Accountant Member "दनांक /Dated: 4th October, 2021 *रती*

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

2.

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)

5.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य आ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →