Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “A(SMC
Before: Shri Manish Borad, & Shri Sonjoy Sarma
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “A(SMC)” KOLKATA Before: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member, and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम M/s. Leder Wills D.C.I.T,CPC, Bangalore. 2 Sushrawardy Avenue, V/s. Park Circus, Kolkata- 700017. PAN: AADFL8432E अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ� /Respondent .. Hearing through video Conferencing अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. CIT, Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 16-02-2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date 02-03-2022 of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM :
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03-09-2019 passed by the of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which in turn arises out of processing of return of income u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’) by DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru on 03/09/2019 for the A.Y under consideration, whereby a sum of Rs.1,21,216/- was disallowed/added back on account of failure of the 1. Leder Wills, Kolkata assessee-appellant on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to ESI/PF.
It is noticed that the appeal of filed by the assessee is time barred by 10 days. For which COD(Condonation of Delay) filed. After considering the contents therein and hearing the Ld. DR, we condone the delay and appeal is admitted for disposal of the same on material available on record and on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A)(NF AC) has erred in law as well as on facts by confirming the disallowances ofRs.1,21,216 being contribution of employee's share towards ESI/PF u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The disallowance is uncalled for and hence be reversed.
2) For that in the Assessment order passed was in violation of principals of natural justice and hence the entire proceeding was bad in law and thus the assessment order be cancelled/ quashed.
3) For that the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was bad in law and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order. The assessment order be cancelled/quashed.
4) For that the assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was on a highly debatable issue thus bad in law and hence the Ld CIT(A) erred In confirming the assessment order. The assessment order be cancelled / quashed.
5) For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on merits without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus order of the CIT (Appeals) be reversed.
6) For that the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad In law and therefore the same be set aside for fresh hearing.
7) The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. 2. Leder Wills, Kolkata
8) The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.
3. On perusal of above grounds of appeal it reveals that the assessee has contested mainly before us the issue of disallowance of Rs. 1,21,216/-- under the head of ESI/PF for delayed payment under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Since this ground goes to the root of the case, hence, we proceed to dispose of the ground no.1 at first.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its e-return of income for the A.Y under consideration, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bangalore on 03-09-2019, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,21,216/- was disallowed/added back on account of failure of the appellant/assessee to deposit the employees contribution to PF/ESI beyond the due date. Admittedly, it was not paid on or before the prescribed due date u/s. 36(1)(va)/2(24)(x) of the Act but paid before the due date of filing income tax return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, CPC.Bangalore, the appellant assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, The ld. CIT(A) considering the various case laws including the CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dt. 17-12-2015 available in his order dismissed the appeal of assessee by upholding/confirming the said disallowance as made by the ld.AO.
Aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the aforementioned grounds of appeal..
6. At the outset before us Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the issue raised in the instant appeal regarding 3. Leder Wills, Kolkata disallowance on delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI without following the provisions of section 2(24)9x) read with section 36(1)(va of the Act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, Kolkata in the case of Vijay Shree Ltd, of 2011(G.A No.2607 of 2011) dt. 12.8.2015. He also invited our attention that the issue in hand is covered in favour of assessee appellant by the latest order dt. 17-11-2021 of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal (ITAT, ‘B ‘Bench, Kolkata) in ITA Nos. 231,365,366,369,367,368 & 371/Kol/2021 for the AYs. 2015-16, ’17-18, ’18-19 & ’19-20 in respect of Lumino Indusries & Ors. Copy of which is available on record. Thus, he prayed before us that the disallowance so made by the ld.AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) kindly be deleted in view of said order of this Tribunal/Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court.
7. On the other hand, Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. CIT, the Ld. Departmental Representative ( in short, the Ld.DR) has not objected to the factual position of the case. However, he submitted that the ld. AO has rightly disallowed the said disallowance and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by confirming the said disallowance.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the issue in hand is fully covered in favour of assessee by the said order dt. 17-11-021 of this tribunal in the case of Lumino Industries (supra). Relevant findings of the said order is reproduced herein below for the sake of clarity:-
“17. Have heard both the parties. We note that the Finance Bill, 2021 has brought in an amendment which disallows the employees' contribution made in PF and ESI if not made within the due date as prescribed by the respective statutes (PF and ESI Act). So after the amendment has been inserted according to Shri Miraj D Shah takes 4. Leder Wills, Kolkata effect from 1st April, 2021 i. e AY 2021-22 and subsequent assessment year and if the remittance of PF/ESI Employees' Contribution is not made within the time prescribed by the PF/ESI Act then the remittance cannot be allowed as a deduction which is prospective in operation. Whereas according to Ld. CIT(A), the amendment brought in is clarificatory in nature so, retrospective in operation. So we have to adjudicate this issue whether the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective or retrospective in operation. We note that before this amendment has been inserted by Finance Bill, 2021, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Vijayshree Ltd. Ltd.(supra), M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd.(supra), M/s Coal India Ltd.(supra), M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd. (supra) has held that the payment of employees' contribution if made by an assessee before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, is allowable as a deduction. We note that by Finance Act, 2021, the provision of Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B has been amended to this extend by inserting the Explanation 2 whereby it is clarified that the provision of Section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purpose of determining the date under this clause. For ready reference, we produce the Explanation-2 to Section 36(1)(va) as under:
“Section 36(1)(va)
Explnation-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 purpose of determining the ‘due date’ under this clause’.
We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about the applicability of Section 43B in respect of belated payment of employees' contribution. In order to test whether the amendment brought in later is retrospective or not one has to apply the test as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Snowtex Investment Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court took note of the law laid down on this issue by the Constitution Bench in M/s Vatika Township Ltd. and held that the intent of the Parliament/legislature need to be looked into for ascertaining whether the amendment should be retrospective or not. In Vatika Township Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the notes on clauses appended to the Finance Bill will throw light as to the legislative intent; because it has to be borne in mind that Parliament/legislature is aware of three concepts before an amendment is brought in, which can be 5. Leder Wills, Kolkata
discerned from reading of the "Notes on Clauses" to the Bill which are (i) prospective amendment with effect from a fixed date; (ii) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and (iii) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature. So when we adjudicate whether the view of Ld CIT(A) that the explanation 2 brought in by Finance Act, 2021 is retrospective, let us look at the "Notes on Clauses and the relevant clauses 8 & 9 of the Finance Bill, 2021 (supra) pertaining to the issue in hand which in clear and unambiguous terms spells out the intention of Parliament that the amendment shall take effect from 1st April, 2021 and therefore will accordingly apply to Assessment Year 2021-22 and subsequent years. So since the legislative intent is clear, the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 on this issue as discussed is prospective and Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding otherwise. So till AY 2021-22, the Jurisdictional High Court's view in favour of assessee will hold good and is binding on us. As discussed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) which was in favor of revenue has not considered the decision of the Co-ordinate Division Bench decision in M/s Aimil Ltd.(supra) which is in favour of assessee. So we note that later decision of the Delhi/Hyderabad Tribunal have followed the decision favouring assessee in the light of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court decision in M/s Vegetable Products (supra). In the light of the aforesaid decision and relying on the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s Snowtex Investment Ltd. (supra) and also taking note of the binding decision of the Hon 'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court on this issue before us in Shri Vijayshree Ltd. Ltd.(supra), M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd.(supra), M/s Coal India Ltd.(supra), M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd. (supra), we set aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction in respect of employees contribution shares towards ESI, PF, by the assessee before the due date of filing of return u/s 139( 1) of the Act. Therefore the appeal of assessee succeeds and so, it is allowed in favor of assessee. “
Respectfully following the above, the disallowance made by the ld.AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Other grounds as raised by the assessee are same and identical to ground no.1, which we already discussed above. Hence, they are not adjudicated.