UMBERTO CERAMICS INTERANATIONAL PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

The present appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ACIT(CPC) u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 16.03.202 for A.Y. 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us:

The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against income computed under the head business and profession. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to delete interest u/s 234B of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.

The assessing officer has disallowed a sum of Rs.54,50,561/- in respect of delay in payment of employees contribution towards provident fund while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the entire contribution has been paid before due date of filing the return of income. However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On the other hand, the ld. D.R has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

Heard both sides and perused the material on record. Without rendering the facts as elaborated above, the assessee has deposited employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC after due date specified in PF/ESIC Acts but before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed in section 139(1) of the act. With the assistance of Ld. Representative, we have perused the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra). In the case of GhatgePatil Transports Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that both employers and employee’s contributions are covered under amendment to section 43B and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416 and payment made was subject to benefit of section 43B. We have also gone through the decision of ITAT MavinahalliShivanajappa Vijay Kumar Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 596 & 597/Bang/2021) and AdhyarAnandBhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.402 & 403/Chennai/2021) on the issue of applicability of the amended provisions of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va). The ITAT Bangalore vide in the case of Shivanajappa Vijay Kumar (supra)after following the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) of the Act will have prospective application. We have also perused the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Adhyar Anand Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. (supra), wherein after following the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s Industrial Security and Intelligence India P. Ltd. in TCA No. 585/2015 held that the amendment brought in the statute by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act amended by inserting Explanation 2 is prospective and not retrospective.

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