VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 512/HYD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 January 2022AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications regarding the timing of these payments apply prospectively from 01-04-2021. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify if payments were made before the due date of filing the return.

What were the facts?

The assessee company's return of income declared NIL income, but was assessed at a higher amount. An addition of Rs. 8,27,36,716 was made for delayed payment of employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance for delayed employee's contribution to PF/ESI is justified when payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income, considering the prospective applicability of recent amendments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 139(1),Section 115JB,Section 143(1)(a),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

For Appellant: Shri A. Chakradhar, Advocate

per PF and ESI enactment respectively.

4.

The contention of the assessee is that the assessee remitted the amount before the due date of filing of return of income, there

1.

ought not to have any disallowance. The Id. A.D. has not considered the submissions of the assessee and addition was made an amount of Rs.8,27,36,716. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Id. C1T(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, Id. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

5.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

6.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The main issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.8,27,36,7616/- made in both the lower proceedings, the rival stands adopted throughout and that the same had been paid before the due date of filing Sec.139(l) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. We notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendment in Sections 36(l)(va) as well as u/s. 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f.

01-04-2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers' contribution/ disallowance u/s,43B as against employee's contribution 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 01-04-2021 only.

7.

It was observed that the audit party raised an objection that the payments are made beyond the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act. But the contention of the assessee is that all the payments were made before filing of the due date of return of income. Therefore, we deem it fit that the matter should go back to the file of Assessing Officer, to examine whether the payments were made within the due date of filing of return or beyond due date of filing of the return. If the payments were made before due date of filing of return, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.36(1)(va) as well as u/s. 43B of the Act.

8.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 27th Jan., 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 27.01.2022. * Reddy gp Copy to :

1. 1. M/s. Vijay Nirman Co. Pvt. Ltd., 8-3-333/118, Kamalapuri Phase 1, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500 073.

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 →