SYNPOL PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BENGLURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 309/AHD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 July 2022AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that late payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, even if made before the tax return filing due date, cannot be equated with payment by the statutory due date under the PF/ESI Acts. Therefore, the disallowance is upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited employee's contribution to PF and ESI after the due date under the respective acts but before the due date for filing the income tax return. The AO disallowed this amount under Section 36(1)(va). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI beyond the statutory due date but before the tax return filing due date is allowable as a deduction. Whether the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 05.07.2022Pronounced: 13.07.2022

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.5,53,830/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act even though the same is allowable u/s 43B of the Act on payment basis.

2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant paid the said EPF and ESI dues during the financial year itself/before due date of filing of return and hence fully allowable.

3. The learned CIT(A) ought to consider that there is no unjust enrichment in the hands of the appellant, and the delay was owing to genuine hardship faced, and hence there should be no disallowance.

Page 2 of 3 4. The learned CIT(A) while passing the said order has not provided opportunity of being heard even though appellant had filed an adjournment request on 15th September 2021 requesting for an extension till 31 October 2021 to file written submissions along with case laws in the said matter. Hence the same is against the principles of natural justice.

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the impugned sum even though amendment in section 36(1)(va) is prospective in nature, i.e. effective from 01.04.2021 and hence disallowance cannot be made in A.Y. 2018-19.”

3.

During the year under consideration, the assessee has filed its return of income at Rs.2,36,89,150/-. The DCIT, Centralised Processing Centre while processing the return for the assessment year 2018-19 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.2,42,42,980/- by making additions of Rs.5,53,836/- under section 36(1)(va) on the ground that the assessee deposited employee’s contribution of Provident Funds and ESI beyond the due date specified under PF/ESI Act although the same were deposited before the due date of filing tax return.

4.

Learned DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in identical issues in case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 41 taxamann.com 100 (Guj) & Pr. CIT vs. M/s Suzlon Energy Limited, R/Tax Appeal No.860 of 2019 order dated 11.02.2020.

5.

We have heard the Learned DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Supra) has clearly set out that the late payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC before the statutory date of filing of income tax return cannot be equated with the due date under the specific statute of Employees’ PF Act and Employees State Insurance Act as there are penalty to the delayed payment under those statute. The issue is decided against the assessee by the jurisdictional

Page 3 of 3 High Court and hence it is covered against the assessee. Appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, dismissed,

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13th day of July, 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 →