PUSHPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 387/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 June 2022AY 2019-203 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 CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. However, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) was not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid employee contributions to EPF and ESI after the due date but before the due date for filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employee contributions to EPF/ESI paid after the due date but before the return filing due date is justified for AY 2019-20.

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 Sarvesh Khandelwal
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27-08-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2019-20.

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 disallowed Rs.42,235/- on account of non-payment of contribution to Employees‟ Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance before the due date as prescribed. It was contended that the said amount relating to employees‟ contribution was paid within due date relating to filing of return of income. The CIT(A) found the said submissions not acceptable and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO, CPC, Bangalore for late payment which is not covered u/s 43B of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the said payment within due date of filing of return of income and the amendment by way of Explanation (1) to clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021 is not applicable in view of the present year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2019-20. Thus, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified and 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 →