DCIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD, JAIPUR

ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal by the Department is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 19-05-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2019-20 wherein the Department has solitary ground as under:- ‘’Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,52,50,269/- u/s 26(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act on account delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESI.’’ 2 – DCIT, CIR-6, JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the AO (CPC), Bengaluru during the course of processing the return of the assessee u/s 143(1) noted that the assessee had received sums from employees as contribution towards PF and ESI amounting to Rs.2,52,50,269/- which were deposited late as per the respective Acts. However, the assessee had deposited the amount of Rs.2,52,50,269/- before the due date of filing the return. In this view of the matter, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.2,52,50,269/- deposited late by the assessee on account of employees PF/ESI contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act . 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.2,52,50,269/- made by the AO u/s 36(1)(va) by observing as under:- ‘’4.3 I have carefully considered the written submission of the appellant and ratio of judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. As per the ratio of judgements relied upon, no disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is called for on account of employees contribution in respect of PF and ESI if the same is deposited before the due date of filing of ITR.

4.4 Further, it is noted that recently different Benches of the ITAT have held in a plethora of decisions that amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) by insertion of Explanation 2 and the amendment to Section 43B by inserting Explanation 5 is prospective in nature and are applicable from 01-04-2021. In this regard, reliance is placed 3 – DCIT, CIR-6, JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. inter alia upon the following decisions of the different benches of Hon’ble ITAT. (a) Flying Fabrications vs DCIT (2021) 132 Taxmann.com 84 dated 17-11-2021 (b) Shri Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar Vs ADIT, CPC, Bengallure in ITA No. 359/Bang/2021 dated 13/10/2021 (ITAT, Banglore) © Bevel Gears (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), ,Bengaloure in ITA No. 376/Bang/2021 dated 11/10/2021 (ITAT Bengalore) (d) Shri Harendra Nath Biswas vs DCIT, Circle-29, Kolkata dated 16-07-2021 (e) Mohan Ram Choudhary vs ITO in ITA No. 51/Jodh/2021 dated 28-09-2021 (ITAT-Jodhpur) (f) Value Momentum Software Services (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-17 (2) Hyderabad in ITA No. 2197/Hyd/2017 dated 15/- 09-202. (g) Jai Enterprises vs DCIT, ITA No.248/JP/2021-ITAT Jaipur dated 25-11-2021 h) Mavinahalli Shivanjappa Vijay Kumar Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang. 2021 ITAT, Banggalore dated 13-12- 2021 (i) M/s. Salzgitter Hydrulics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No./Hyd/ 2020 ITAT Hyderabad dated 15.06.2021 (j) M/s Mahadev Cold Storage vs Jurisdictional AO, ITA No. 41 &42/Agra/2021 ITAT Agra dated 14.06.2021 (k) S.V. Engineering Construction India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 30/Viz/2021 ITAT Visakhapatnam dated 23.09.2021 (l) Suba Singh vs. ITO, ITA No. 85/Asr/2021 ITAT Amrisar dated 10.11.2021 (m) Lumino Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 231 & 365/Kol/2021 ITAT Kolkata 17.11.2021 (n) Ridhi Sidhi Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 71 & 72/Jodh/2021 ITAT Jodhpur dated 28.09.2021 4 ITA NO. 276/JP/2022 – DCIT, CIR-6, JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. (o) Nikhil Mohine vs. DCIT, ITA No. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 ITAT Jabalpur dated 18.11.2021 (p) Transzone Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.vs DCIT ITA No. 1739 & 1740/Del/2021 ITAT Delhi dated 29-10-2021 (q) Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT, ITA No. 402 & 403/CHNY/2021 ITAT Chennai dated 8-12- 2021 ( r ) Jagmohan Singh Vs DCIT, ITA Nos. 185 & 193/CHD/2021 ITAT Chandigarh dated 15-12-2021 (s) Inderjit Bajaj vs DCIT, Circle-1, Jalandhar (ITAT Amritsar) (t) Sagun Foundry 291 CTR 557 (All.) (u) Vinko Auto Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (supra) (v) DRP Metal Works (Regd.) vs ADIT (supra) and Sube Singh vs ITO, ITA No. 85/ASR/2021 Following the aforesaid decisions, the claim of the appellant is allowed. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.2,52,50,269/- made u/s 36(1)(va) is deleted and ground No. 1 of appeal is allowed.’’