M/S. SUDERSHAN GEARS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD-17(3) (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1700/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 April 2022AY 2018-193 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 CPC lacked jurisdiction to make such an adjustment under Section 143(1), as there were High Court decisions favoring the assessee. Furthermore, the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective, and for the assessment year in question, the assessee's position was supported by existing jurisprudence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a disallowance of Rs. 4,75,259/- for PF/ESIC contributions paid after the due date. This disallowance was made by the CPC under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CPC had the jurisdiction to disallow PF/ESIC contributions paid after the due date but before the return filing date under Section 143(1). Whether the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is retrospective in nature.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Hearing: 30.03.2022Pronounced: 20.04.2022

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 4.8.2021 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

The issue raised is that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining to disallowance of Rs. 4,75,259/- under section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act pertaining to PF/ESIC contribution paid after due date made by CPC under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that in the order under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act passed by CPC, Bangalore disallowing the aforesaid sum.

4.

Against the above order the assessee appealed before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) noted that PF&ESIC have been deposited after the due date but before the date of filing of return. However, learned CIT(A) upheld the action by referring the amendment in the Act.

5.

Against this order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

2 M/s. Sudarshan Gears

6.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record. I find that prior to the amendment there were Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision which laid down that deposit of the sum up to the date of filing of return is sufficient compliance. The Finance Act, 2021 has provided an explanation in this regard for the disallowance of the sum which is paid after the due date. When this fact is taken into account by no stretch of imagination it can said that the above said adjustment can fall under the category of 143(1) prima-facie adjustment. Hence, I hold that CPC has no jurisdiction of adjustment u/s. 143(1) on this issue where admittedly there were decisions in favour of the assessee from the Hon’ble High Courts and the legislature has brought in an Explanation by Finance Act, 2021 in this regard subsequently. Moreover, as regards, merits of the case the aforesaid explanation was added by Finance Act, 2021 and the said explanation in my considered opinion cannot be said to be retrospective. The assessment year during the present case is AY 2018-19 and is prior to the said amendment/insertion. Hence, on merits also, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee as before the amendment, there were catena of decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in favor of assessee on the said issue.

7.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and the orders of the authority below are set aside.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2022.

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 →