PEOPLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES,MYSURU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 541/BANG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 August 2022AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the legislative amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, along with the CBDT's Memorandum of Explanation, were applicable prospectively from 1.4.2021. Therefore, the impugned disallowance was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee made disallowance on account of employee's contribution to ESI/PF. The assessee contended that the amounts were paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, though after the due date prescribed in the respective statutes. The assessee relied on High Court judgments and argued that the amendments by Finance Act, 2021 were prospective.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employee's contribution to ESI/PF is sustainable when paid after the statutory due date but before the Income Tax Return filing due date, considering the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Bhargava, S.N
For Respondent: Shri K.R Narayan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 03.08.2022

O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12.5.2022 for the asst. year 2019-20 with the following substantive grounds of appeal:-

"1. That the Intimation Order dt. 04.01.2021 passed by the Learned ADIT, CPC and confirmed by Hon 'ble FM, in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant is bad and erroneous, and is opposed to fact and law as interpreted by Jurisdictional High Court and hence goes against the various judgements cited earlier.

2.

Both the learned ADIT and the Hob'ble FM have erred in NOT applying the law as interpreted by jurisdictional High court, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in MIS Essae Teraoka Pvt Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - (2014 366 1TR 408) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sabari Enterprises - (2008 298 ITR 141).

3.

The Hon'ble FAA has also erred in Retrospective application of Explanation 2 and 5 inserted by Finance Act, 2021 to sec 36(1)(va) and sec 43B respectively to Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby going beyond the intention of Finance Act, 2021 and denying the benefit of Legal interpretation by Hon 'ble High Court of Karnataka.

4. That the Appeal may be allowed on the above ground and any other grounds that the Appellant may be permitted to adduce at the time of hearing."

3. The ld.AR of the assessee said that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that CBDT Circular No.22/2015 cannot override the provisions of section 43B and the amendments made in this regard in the Finance Act 2021 is prospective in nature, consequently, there cannot be disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.AR reiterated the submission made before the CIT(A) which is placed on record. He further submitted that the amendment made in the Finance Act 2021 is prospective in nature. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2014] 366 ITR 408/222 Taxman 170/32 taxmann.com 33 (Kar).

4.

On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the lower authorities and he vehemently submitted that there was clear provision in the Income-tax Act u/s 36(1)(va) in this regard. Once the assessee received the employees contribution firstly it is created as income of the assessee u/s 2(24)(x) and if the assessee deposits the concerned amount within the due date specified in the respective act then the assessee will get deduction as per sec.36(1)(va) of the Act. The employee’s contribution received is under sec.36(1)(va) but not u/s 43B of the Act. The amendment made by the Finance Act 2021 is only a clarificatory in nature, therefore, the order of the lower authorities should be restored.

5.

We heard both sides and perused the entire materials on record and orders of the authorities below. Coming to the substantive issue of ESI/PF with regard to additions made by the AO of Rs.62,62,905/- and the tax effect is of Rs.19,54,026/-, the assessee's plea that the same has been paid before the due date of filing of Income-tax return u/s 139(1) and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. We notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendment in Sections 36(1)(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers' contribution/disallowance u/s 43B of the Act as against employee's contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act; respectively. The similar issue has been decided by the Hyderabad Bench in the case of M/s Chiphercloud India Pvt. Ltd., in and also keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, we hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments.

6.

The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore. Hence, we allow the appeal of the assessee.

7.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

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 →