SATISH JAYNARAYAN MUNDADA,PUNE vs. CENTRAL PROCEEDINGS CENTRE (CPC), BANGALORE

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set

The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the disallowance made by the CPC, Bangalore on account of delay in depositing employees‟ contribution to PF/ESI in the facts and circumstances of the case.

We note that the AO, CPC disallowed Rs.83,193/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), it was contended that the said amount was paid before filing of return of income u/s 139(1) and no disallowance is warranted. The CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance by holding that the provisions u/s 43B are not applicable. It is not disputed by the ld. DR that the said employees‟ contributions to PF/ESI were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, which is also evident from para No.5 of impugned order. We note that Explanation (1) was inserted to clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021, wherein the definition of due date is defined making it clear that the assessee is required as an employer to credit employees‟ contribution to the employees account in the relevant fund under any Act, Rule, Order or Notification issued therein or under any Standing order, Award, Contract of service or otherwise. Admittedly, the assessment year under consideration is 2019-20 and in our opinion, the said amendment by way of Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 is not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance as confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.