SRI CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

1. The order of the learned Assessing Officer in so far as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities, jurisdiction, facts and circumstances of the case.

The Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts to add Rs. 64,52,229/- on account of employees contribution not paid within the time prescribed under the relevant PF or ESI Act, even these contribution are paid before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act 3. The impugned order was made without giving the appellant reasonable opportunity to present their point of view, thus violating the procedural fairness. 4. The Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the explanation and supporting given by your Appellant in this regard. It is respectfully submitted that we may be permitted to add, delete and / or put forward any other grounds and fact of appeal and other related points at the time of hearing.” Assessment Year: 2019-20 “1. The order of the learned Assessing Officer in so far as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities, jurisdiction, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts to add Rs. 89,95,797/- on account of employees contribution not paid within the time prescribed under the relevant PF or ESI Act, even those contribution are paid before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act 3. The impugned order was made without giving the appellant reasonable opportunity to present their point of view, thus violating the procedural fairness. 4. The Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the explanation and supporting given by your Appellant in this regard. It is respectfully submitted that we may be permitted to add, delete and / or put forward any other grounds and fact of appeal and other related points at the time of hearing.” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company and earned income from manufacturing and sale of sugar. For the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, Page 3 of 7 & 356/Bang/2022 returns of income were filed on 21/09/2018 and 28/09/2018 respectively declaring Nil income under normal provision for both years and loss of Rs. 13,62,41,838/- u/s. 115JB for A.Y. 2018-19. The returns were processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. In the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, the CPC disallowed the employees' contribution to PF and ESI to the tune of Rs.64,52,229/- for A.Y. 2018-19 and Rs.89,95,797/- for A.Y. 2019- 20. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee did not remit the employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due date specified under the respective Acts.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court Pr.CIT vs. Hind Filter Ltd. in ITA No. 662 of 2015. The assessee is entitled to deduction of the same. The Ld.CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by relying on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Gujarat Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100. The CIT(A) noticed the difference between the employees' contribution and the employer's contribution and held insofar as the employees' contribution to ESI and PF, the same need to be remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. An identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of The Continental Restaurant & Café Co. v. ITO (supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- "7. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not remitted the employees' contribution of PF of Rs.1,06,190 and ESI of Rs.16,055 totaling to Rs.1,22,245 before the due date specified under the respective Act. However, the assessee had paid the same before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court differed with the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In holding so, the Hon'ble High Court was considering following substantial question of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provisions u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act?" 7.1 In deciding the above substantial question of law, the Hon'ble High Court rendered the following findings:- "20. Paragraph-38 of the PF Scheme provides for Mode of payment of contributions. As provided in sub para (1), the employer shall, before paying the member, his wages, deduct his contribution from his wages and deposit the same together with his own contribution and other charges as stipulated therein with the provident fund or the fund Page 5 of 7 & 356/Bang/2022 under the ESI Act within fifteen days of the closure of every month pay. It is clear that the word "contribution" used in Clause (b) of Section 43B of the IT Act means the contribution of the employer and the employee. That being so, if the contribution is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act is made, the employer is entitled for deduction.

The submission of Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue that if the employer fails to deduct the employees' contribution on or before the due date, contemplated under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that as his income, deserves to be rejected.

With respect, we find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. WE agree with the view taken by this Court in W.A.No.4077/2013.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the substantial question of law framed by us is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee would have been entitled to deduction of employees' contribution of PF and ESI if the payment was made prior to due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective in nature. Even otherwise, the amendment has been mentioned to be effective from 01.04.2021 and will apply for and from assessment year 2021-2022 onwards. The following orders of the Tribunal had categorically held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services v. ACIT in ITA No.622/Del/2018 (order dated 27.08.2021). (iv) M/s.Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited v. DCIT in ITA No.307/Bang/2021 (order dated 11th October, 2021)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 6.1 We also note that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Essae Taroka (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 266 CTR 246 and Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. reported in (2013) 266 CTR 94 has affirmed the above view. In view of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, we hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act will not have application for the relevant assessment years, namely assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of employees' contribution to PF and ESI since the assessee has made the payment before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2022.