M/S KOHINOOR ELASTICS P LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT 2(1), INDORE

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :

The assessee company filed its return declaring total income at Rs. 8,63,43,150/-. The CPC, Bangalore processed this return and made addition of Rs. 43,00,281 under Section 36(1)(va) on account of delay in payment of employees’ contribution of provident fund / ESI. The addition of Rs. 24,827 was also made to the total income on account of disallowance of dividend received.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assesse filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the sole issue in the present assessment is related to upholding addition of Rs.43,00,281/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in payments of Employee’s contribution of Provident Fund/Employees’ State Insurance. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) has made the said addition without appreciating that the same was deposited within the time available to the assessee under Section 43B of the Act i.e. before filing the return of income. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee claimed the benefit of Section as the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts across the country most specifically that of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508. The Ld. A.R. submitted that prima facie adjustment under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act could not be made as the same was beyond the scope of provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act and that the said adjustment was made giving the assessee opportunity of being heard. The assessee challenged the action of the CPC in invoking provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act based on the Audit Report. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. S.V. Engineering Constructions India (P) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.130/Viz/2021) has categorically held that the issue on account of late payment of employee’s contribution to Provident

The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee thereby stating that the Finance Act, 2021 has amended Section 43B of the Act as well as Section 36(1)(va) by inserting Explanation 5 to Section 43B of the Act and Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act wherein it is categorically stated that the provisions of these Sections shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2 applies as well as it will never be applied for the purpose of determining “due date” under this clause. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that though the insertion of this explanation are w.e.f. 01.04.2021, it is clarificatory in nature and, therefore, it will be applicable retrospectively in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2014) 5 SCC 1. The explanations’ will be applicable for earlier assessment years as well. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the contribution made by employees have been deposited after the due date of statutory time limit under the PF Act as well as Employees State Insurance Act. The Ld. D.R. submitted that these statues are beneficial legislation and the due date should be adhered to. As regards various decisions cited by the Ld. A.R., the Ld. D.R. submitted that these decisions are contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj.) holding that employees' contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) deposited beyond the due date prescribed u/s.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be eligible for deduction u/s. 43B of the Act even after deposited before the due date of filing of tax return. The Ld. DR also relied upon the decision

The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of the Indore Bench in the case of Nataraj Dal Mill, Indore vs. ACIT ITA No. 153/IND/2021 order dated 06.12.2021.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance on the ground that insertion of Explanation 2 and 5 in Section 43B, 36(1)(va) by Finance Act 2021 is retrospective in nature. Therefore, the payment made to the contribution related to employee’s contribution of PF and ESI and after the due date of statutory limit under those Statute but before filing of the return of income was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Section 36(1)(va) of the Act has stated that any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of Section 2 applies if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. Prior to Finance Act, 2021 there was no explanation to the word “due date” given and, therefore, the due date was interpreted by various High Courts as being the due date of filing return of income. As the due date was not specified in the earlier occasion, the Finance Act, 2021 has inserted explanation 1 to the Section thereby clarifying that due date means the statutory due date given under the specific Statute. This amendment/insertion is not clarificatory in nature and therefore not retrospective as there is clear mention in the Finance Act that this explanation will come w.e.f. 01.04.2021, thus it will be applicable to A.Y. 2021-22 and subsequent A.Ys. The assessee’s appeal is of 2018-19 which is prior to this explanation. The reliance of the Ld. D.R. upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh (supra) in fact supports the assessee’s case and clearly set out that when there is specific effective date given by the Act, the amendment/Insertion/deletion will be effective from that date itself and if there is no mention of retrospective word then it will not be applicable to the earlier dates. Though the Ld. A.R. categorically stated that some of the Hon’ble High Courts has decided this issue against the assessee but majority of the Hon’ble High Court decisions are in favour of the assessee where employee’s

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.