HISTORIC RESORT HOTELS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned appellant authority was wrong in not allowing the sum of Rs. 622830/- U/s 36(1 )(va) of The Income Tax Act being employees contribution to PF ESI paid after the due date as prescribed under the said Acts particularly when the same has been held allowable by jurisdictional High Court if deposited before the due date of filing of the return.

That the learned appellant authority was also wrong in holding that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 making amendments U/s 36( l)(va) and section 43(b) of The Income 'lax Act are retrospective particular!) when the same are applicable for the Assessment Year 2021-22 and onwards.

That the learned appellate authority was also not justified in not considering the corrigendum given by the tax auditor with regard to occurring certain mistakes in mentioning the due dates and actual dates for payments of PF/ESI submitted during the course of appeal.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case die learned Assessing Officer has also erred in allowing credit for brought forward business losses to the extent of Rs.4895692/- only particularly when the carry forward business loss brought forward was Rs. 171435852/- as claimed in the return and there was also unabsorbed depreciation brought forward amounting to Rs.194356877/-

That the appellant craves to add. amend, alter or substitute any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing.

That the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed as per grounds of appeal.

The main grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of Rs. 622830/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the issue under consideration is squarely covered vide common order dated 27/09/2021 passed by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in ITA No. 59/Jodh/2021 for the assessment years 2015-16 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company Vs. DCIT and in the case of Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru, in ITA No. 60/Jodh/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20.

In his rival submissions, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the aforesaid referred to cases, wherein one of us is author of the order dated 27/09/2021. In the said order it has been held vide paras 7 to 11 in ITA No. 59/Jodh/2021 for the assessment years 2015-16 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company Vs. DCIT and in the case of Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru, in ITA No. 60/Jodh/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20 as under:-

We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessees deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, however, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated by the various Benches of the ITAT. 8.2 In the case of Harendra Nath Biswas vs DCIT Koltaka, ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20, similar issue has been decided vide order dated 16.7.2021 by the ITAT ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata. The Relevant findings have been given in para 4 of the said order, which read as under;-

Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Hyderabad ‘SMC” Bench in ITA No. 644/Hyd./2020 for the AY 2019-20 in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Ltd, Hyderabad vs ITO vide order dt 15.6.2021. The relevant findings given in para 2 of the said order read as under:-

On an identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 12.8.2021 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others vs CPC, Banglore in ITA No. 5/Jodh/2021 and others held vide para 13 to 18 as under:-

The issue is no more res integra in light of series of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court starting from CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) and subsequent decisions.

In this regard, we may refer to the initial decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur wherein the Hon’ble High Court after extensively examining the matter and considering the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts has decided the matter in favour of the assessee. In the said decision, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to held as under:

A conjoint reading of the proviso to Section 43-B which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 made effective from 01/04/1988, the words numbered as clause (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f), are omitted from the above proviso and, further more second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further envisage that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date admissible at the time of submitting return of the income under Section 139 of the Act in respect of the previous year can be claimed by the assessee for deduction out of their gross total income. It is also clear that Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1) (va) and if read in isolation Sec. 43B would become obsolete.

We have already observed that till this provision was brought in as the due amounts on one pretext or the other were not being deposited by the assessees though substantial benefits had been obtained by them in the shape of the amount having been claimed as a deduction but the said amounts were not deposited. It is pertinent to note that the respective Act such as PF etc. also provides that the amounts can be paid later on subject to payment of interest and other consequences and to get benefit under the Income Tax Act, an assessee ought to have actually deposited the entire amount as also to adduce evidence regarding such deposit on or before the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act.

Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.”

The said decision has subsequently been followed in CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra), and CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corportation Limited (supra). In all these decisions, it has been consistently held that where the PF and ESI dues are paid after the due date under the respective statues but before filing of the return of income under section 139(1), the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court but has decided to follow the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi, Madras, Gujarat and Kerala High Courts. Given the divergent views taken by the various High Courts and in the instant case, the fact that the jurisdiction over the Assessing officer lies with the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in our considered view, the ld CIT(A) ought to have considered and followed the decision of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, as evident from series of decisions referred supra, as the same is binding on all the appellate authorities as well as the Assessing officer under its jurisdiction in the State of Rajasthan.

In light of aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the addition by way of adjustment while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) amounting to Rs 4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby

Since the facts of the present cases are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to cases, therefore respectfully following the earlier orders as referred to herein above of the different Benches of the ITAT, the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of deposits of employees contribution of ESI & PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted.

Since the facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts involved in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company Vs. DCIT (supra) and in the case of Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru (supra) . So respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order, the disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted.

Vide ground No. 4 the assessee contended as under: 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case die learned Assessing Officer has also erred in allowing credit for brought forward business losses to the extent of Rs.4895692/- only particularly when the carry forward business loss brought forward was Rs. 171435852/- as claimed in the return and there was also unabsorbed depreciation brought forward amounting to Rs.194356877/-

During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that while processing the return of income carry forward business losses and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation were not considered which are allowable in accordance with law to the assessee and that the Ld. CIT(A) had also not adjudicated this issue although it was raised before him.

In his rival submissions the Ld. DR although supported the orders of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is not clear as to whether there were

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.