Case Law Details
AKS Power Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Where assessee remitted employees contribution towards PF and ESI before filing of return under section 139(1) and that the amendment/Explanation brought in Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1-4-2021 on the instant issue being prospective in nature, the said amendment would not be applicable to the relevant assessment year; thus, the addition made on account of delay in payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESI was liable to be deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
All these captioned appeals filed by different Assessee’s are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)- [National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)], Delhi dated 27.07.2021, 28.04.2021, 28.07.2021, 31.07.2021 and 30.07.2021 respectively for Assessment years 20 19-20 and except for ITA No. 254/Kol/2021 which is AY 2018-19.
2. At the outset, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate submitted that the sole issue permeating in all the five captioned appeals are regarding the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) in confirming the addition made by AO on account of delay in payment of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI, even though the assessee has remitted the employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI before filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961[herein after the Act] According to Ld. AR, the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 is not applicable in this case, and the Ld CIT(A) erred in applying the explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021, since this Tribunal has already held that the amendment/explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature and not applicable to these assessment year before us and cited the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 Harendra Nath Biswas Vs. DCIT, AY 2019-20 dated 16.07.2021; And therefore, according to Ld. AR, the issues in all the appeals are res-integra and the assessee is also relying on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Vijayshree Ltd. reported in [2014] 43 com 396(Cal) and the Tribunal’s order cited supra. Per contra, the Ld. DR supports the action of the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) and does not want us to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
