NEELKANTH MANSIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1938/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2022AY 2018-197 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the employer's contribution to ESIC, paid before the return filing due date, is allowable as a deduction. The employee's contribution, though paid after the ESIC due date but before the return filing due date, is also allowable as a deduction for the assessment year in question.

What were the facts?

The assessee company had its employer's and employee's contribution to ESIC disallowed. The employer's contribution was paid after the ESIC due date but before the return filing due date, while the employee's contribution was paid after the ESIC due date and also after the return filing due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employer's and employee's ESIC contributions is justified, particularly in light of the Finance Act, 2021 amendments and their retrospective or prospective applicability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CA
For Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. AR
Hearing: 21.04.2022Pronounced: 28.04.2022
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 20th September, 2021, for Assessment Year 2018- 19, wherein the disallowance of ₹1,89,235/- being employers’ contribution to ESIC and amount of ₹70,435/- being employee’s contribution to ESIC is disallowed.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

2. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT, CPC in upholding disallowance of Rs. 70,435/- u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of employee's contribution to ESIC in contradiction to jurisdictional Courts decisions which is binding upon him and without observing the principles of natural justice and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT, CPC in upholding disallowance of Rs. 1,89,235/- under section 36(1)(va) in respect of employer's contribution to ESIC in contradiction to the explicit provision of section 43B and without observing the principles of natural justice and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC has erred in not allowing the Assessee's request for withdrawal of appeal which assessee rightly made, since the Assessing Officer had allowed the payments of employee's and employer's contribution to ESIC made after the due date as specified in the concerned Act vide order u/s 143(3) dated 12/04/2021 after issue of Notice u/s 142(1) dated 24/12/2020 requesting the assessee to explain as to why the amount of Rs. 2,59,671/ should not be disallowed. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim after considering our reply dated 07/01/2021 filed during the course of scrutiny assessment in response to the said notice u/s 142(1) dated 24/12/2020.

6. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, in the circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred to rely on amendment to Finance Act, 2021 and considering the same to apply retrospectively which is in direct contravention of the law since the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01/04/2021 and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred not to consider the insertion of

3. The fact of the case shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of builder and developers. It filed its return of income on 8th October, 2018, declaring total income of ₹3,18,79,530/-. The above return was processed by passing intimation under section 143(1) of the Act on 19th November, 2019. A sum of ₹2,59,671/- being sum received from employees and own contribution of assessee to Provident Fund, Superannuation, ESIC, etc. not credited to the account of respective fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective law and therefore, same was disallowed under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the intimation assessee filed an appeal before NFAC. Assessee contested that the contribution of ₹1,89,235/- is employer’s contribution which is disallowed in spite of the fact that it has been paid with the respective fund before the due date of filing of return of income. It was further stated that ₹70,435/- is the employees’ contribution which has also been paid before the due date of filing of the return of income and therefore both these disallowances should be deleted. The learned CIT(A) looked at the provisions of the Finance Act, 2021 and relying on the decision of co-ordinate Bench in case of Vedvan Consultants Private Limited Vs. DCIT in 26th dated August, 2021,

4.

The learned Authorized Representative referred to page no. 89 of the Paper Book to show that sum of ₹1,89,235/- is a employer’s contribution to ESIC scheme which has been paid beyond the due date specified under ESIC law but is paid before the due date of filing of the return of income. He further referred to respective dates on which the payment has been made. He further submitted that a sum of ₹70,436/- is employees contribution which has also been paid before the due date of filing of the return. However, he admitted that employee’s contribution has not been deposited on or before the respective due dates of ESIC law. In view of this he submitted that the employer’s contribution cannot be disallowed in any circumstances. Further, with respect to the employee’s contribution a sum is paid before the due date of filing of the return of income same is allowable as deduction. He submitted that the impugned assessment order is Assessment Year 2018-19 and amendment has been brought by The Finance Act, 2021, therefore, amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. He relied upon several co- ordinate Bench decisions wherein, it has been held that amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was stated that the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 is

6.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee that whether the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 applies retrospective or prospectively by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in case of Raj kumar Vs. ITD [2022] 136 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi - Trib.), wherein it has been held that these amendments are applicable prospectively with effect from Assessment Year 2021-22. When there are more than one decision of ITAT benches expressing diverse views, we tend to take a view which is in favour of assessee. In view of this, respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench, we held that employees contribution of ESIC of ₹70,435/- though deposited by the assessee beyond due dates prescribed under respective ESIC law but before the due date of filing of the return of income is allowable to the assessee as deduction for impugned Assessment Year 2018-19.

7.

With respect to the employer’s contribution of ESIC which has been deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return of income is not covered by Provisions of Section 2(24) (x) of the Act and therefore, is allowable as deduction. In view of this, we hold that disallowance of

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2022.

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 →