SUTRA SYSTEMS (I) P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 382/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 June 2022AY 2017-183 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 amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by way of Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, which defines 'due date', is not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee remitted employees' contribution to EPF and ESI after the due date but before the due date of filing the return of income. The AO disallowed this amount, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to EPF and ESI, paid after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date, is justified in light of the amendment to Section 36(1)(va).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Sanmane
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasanani

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 04-08-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).

3.

The Assessing Officer (AO), CPC, Bangalore found the assessee has not paid employees‟ contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date as prescribed. The assessee explained that the said employees‟ contribution was remitted before the due date of filing of return of income. We note that the CIT(A) recorded the said statement vide para 3 of impugned order, but however, confirmed the disallowance taking into account the amendment being declaratory in nature and has retrospective effect. 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 2017-18 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. Thus, it is set aside by holding that the assessee is entitled to get deduction. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

4.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 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 →