SANTOSH KANKANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD 7(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions was not sustainable. This was based on the legislative amendments and CBDT clarification that these changes apply prospectively from April 1, 2021.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 was delayed by 281 days, which was condoned. The main issue was a disallowance of ESI/PF contributions.
What were the issues?
The key issue was whether the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions paid after the due date of filing the return but before the statutory due date was valid, considering recent legislative changes.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2018-19 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 07-09-2020 passed in case No.10318 / 2019-20 / B2 / CIT(A)-3, involving proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires at the outset that this assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 281 days delay stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond his control as per condonation petition/affidavit. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore.
Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.19,47,635/- made in both the lower proceedings, the assessee’s and Revenue’s pleas before me inter alia are that the same had been paid before the due date of filing Sec.139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statute(s); respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendment in Sections 36(1)(va) as well as u/s. 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 01-04-2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers’ contribution/disallowance u/s.43B as against employee’s contribution u/s.36(va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable only with prospective effect from 01-04-2021 only, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments. The same is deleted therefore.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th 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 →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026