DIGIQAL SOLUTION SERVICES PVT.LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(1), CHANDIGARH
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 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?
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
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’).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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..
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
""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
"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)
- 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 →- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026