M/S. KOHINOOR PRINTERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADIT CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer noticed from Annexure iii to 3CD report, being annual statement of accounts of the assessee in regard to the provident fund i.e. employees contribution for Pune Regional office, Nasik Regional Office and Mumbai Headquarter. The assessee either made no payment or there is difference in payment or the payment is made after due date as prescribed under the Provident Fund Act. The Assessing Officer has pointed out the following:-

Hence, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of assessee of employees contribution to the provident Fund being paid beyond the due date of prescribed Act amounting to ₹ 11,03,233/- and added to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in Para 5.6 as under: - “5.6.1 This ground relates to addition of Rs. 11,03,233/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of late payment of employees contribution to PF. During the appellate proceeding it has been contended that the same are paid before due date of filing of return. Relying on the case in 53 Taxmann.com 141, CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transport (BOM) and other A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 jurisdictional judgements, the assessing officer is directed to verify and allow the same if paid before due date of filing the return of income. This ground is allowed subject to verification.” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal.

Before us, the learned CIT DR Ms. Mamta Bansal stated that there is no question of allowance of differential payment of ₹65,462/- which has never been paid by the assessee and the amount which are not paid by the assessee amounting to ₹1,28,798/- being claimed on account of employees contribution of provident fund. The balance amount of ₹9,08,873/- was paid after the due date as prescribed under the provident fund Act. She stated that the Assessing Officer clearly brought out the amount due and amount paid. Now, the learned CIT DR further stated that there is an amendment in the Provisions of Section 36(va), wherein explanation 2 was added by the Finance Act 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021 and the relevant explanation read as under: - “[Explanation-2- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the “due date” under this clause;]

The learned CIT DR stated that this is only clarificatory explanation and normal presumption is that these provisions have been in the Act from the very inception, once it is clarificatory for this, she relied on CIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC).

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2021) 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad – Trib.) dated A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 15.06.2021, wherein it is held that the provident fund contribution received from employees deposited by assessee before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act but after the due date prescribed in the relevant statute of provident Fund Act is to be allowed despite the fact that legislation has not only incorporated necessary amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the Act by inserting explanation 2 as well as explanation 5 to section 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, wherein it is clarified that the provisions of section shall not apply and shall be deemed to have been applied to a sum received by assessee from any of his employees covered by section 2(24)(x) of the Act because this explanations are prospective and not retrospective. The relevant Para 2 of the case reads as under: - “2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs. 1,09,343/- and Rs. 3,52,622/-, the assessee's and revenue's stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Sections 36(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 forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee 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 1-4-2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue's case is supported by the following case law.” A.Ys.2018-19 & 2019-20 19. In view of the above, we are of the view that the legislative amendments incorporated in section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 by inserting explanation 2 and explanation 5 to the respective provisions, are prospective in application with effect from 01.04.2021. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 5. Since the issue has duly been covered by the decision in the case of Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (supra), therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee.

The facts of the present case are quite similar to the fact of the case as narrated above while deciding the therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. However, the figure is different. The finding given above while deciding the ITA. No.1781/Mum/2021 is quite applicable to the facts of the present case also as mutatis and mutandis. Accordingly, we allowed the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA. No.1782/Mum/2021 also.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.