Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. KUL BHARAT
Consolidated Appeals (50)
The present appeals are filed by the above mentioned assesses and Revenue feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by appellate authority for various assessment years mentioned hereinabove.
Since the issue in all the appeals are common, therefore we clubbed all of them together for the sake of brevity and convenience. However, we are taking as a lead case wherein assessee has raised the following grounds:
“1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154/143(1) of the IT Act, 1961.
The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.11,81,760/- made by the Assessing officer by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law ignoring the well-established judicial pronouncements including that of the jurisdiction High Court. 5. That Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the explanation inserted u/s 36(i)(va) is retrospectively effective while the Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill 2021 clearly mandates that the amendment will take effect from 01.04.2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. 6. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of Contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add/alter/any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3. Similar grounds with different amounts and assessment years have been raised in other appeals but however the sum and substance and the issue involved in all the appeals are identical.
4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that the sole grievance of the assessee is confirming the additions on account of delay in deposit of employee’s contribution towards provident fund and ESI fund.
5. Before us, Learned AR submitted that additions has been made in the intimation issued by CPC, Bangalore u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the contribution received towards PF/ESIC by the assessee from its employees was not deposited before the due date. He submitted that though there has been delay in deposit of PF/ESIC Contributions but all the contributions received by the assessee from its employees have been deposited with the appropriate authorities before the filing of return of income by the assessee. He therefore submitted that since the amounts have been deposited before the filing of return of income, no disallowance is called for and for aforesaid proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of Azamgarh Steel & Power vs. CPC in dated 31.05.2021 and CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 188 Taxman 265 (Delhi) and various other decisions.
Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities and also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT in order dated 26.08.2021. He also submitted that the amendment brought out by Finance Act 2021 would be applicable to the present case as by the amendment it has been clarified that provisions of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub clause (x) of Clause (24) of Section 2 applies.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue is no more res-integra. The issue has already been settled in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. dated 10.09.2018 has already taken a view in favour of the assessee by holding as under:
In view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus AIMIL Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del.) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.
As far as reliance by Learned DR on the amendment brought out by Finance Act 2021 is concerned, “notes on clauses” to the Finance Bill 2021 clearly states that the amendment will take effect from 1st April 2021 and will apply in relation to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment year. In such a situation, we are of the view that the amendment brought out by Finance Act 2021 does not apply to the assessment year under consideration.
Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid order cited hereinabove has been overruled/stayed/set aside by higher judicial forum. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income. Admittedly in all the above-stated matters, the Revenue had not contended that the assessee has deposited the contribution after the filing of the return of income. In view of the above, Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court cited hereinabove, we allow the appeals filed by the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and one appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.