SURYAUDAY SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the deduction for employee's contribution to PF and ESI should be allowed if paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Alom Extrusions.
What were the facts?
The assessee company claimed deduction for employee's contribution to PF and ESI deposited after the due date but before the return filing date. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, a view upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether deduction for employee's contribution to PF and ESI is allowable if deposited after the statutory due date but before the return filing date.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.1,344 citing319 ITR 306 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH : Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi
Date of Hearing : 12/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement 03 /05/2021 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal for AY 2018-19 against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad dated 24.09.2020.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 01.10.2018 admitting total income of Rs.32,90,560/-. The return was initially processed u/s 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] by the Assessing Officer at CPC, Bengaluru by making disallowance of Rs. 9,88,983/- being the delayed payment of PF and ESI. Against the same, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), stating that the employees contribution to PF and ESI was deposited beyond the due date, but before filing of return of income. Assessee relied upon the judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) in support of its claim of deduction.
M/s Suryauday Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd.
2.1. The CIT(A), however, held that in the case of Alom Extrusions (supra), the hon’ble Supreme Court has not laid down any proposition of law with regard to allowability of deduction in respect of belated payment of employee’s contribution to PF and ESI and therefore, it is not applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A), accordingly confirmed the order of the Assessing officer.
2.2. Assessee is in second appeal before the tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal. Pertaining to disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) : Tax effect5: Rs.3,05,595/-
1. The LdCIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 9,88,983/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act by disallowing deduction of employees contribution to PF and ESI but not credited to employees account before due date
2. That the ldCIT(A) erred in not considering the fact in view of the decision of Jurisdictional ITAT on the same issue, disallowance cannot be made when the amount is credited in the relevant account before due date of filing of return of income.
Ld.counsel for assessee submitted that similar issue has come up before this tribunal in a number of cases where in the coordinate benches of this tribunal have followed the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions (supra) to allow the deduction in the case of the employee’s contribution to PF and ESI also if the same was remitted to relevant account before the date of filing of the return of income. He submitted that the Department has brought in the amendment to section 43B with effect from assessment year 2020-21 and thereafter, employees contribution to PF and ESI will not be allowed if it is not paid before the due date of relevant Act. He has filed before the tribunal a copy of the note on Clauses explaining clause (viii) of the Act which seeks to amend section 36(1)(va) of the Act and it has been mentioned that the amendment will be effective from 01st April 2021 i.e. for assessment year 2021-22 onwards.
M/s Suryauday Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd.
Ld.DR however relied upon the order of the authorities below.
Having regard to rival contentions and the material placed on record, I notice that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the tribunal which have in turn followed the decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions.
Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to direct the Assessing officer to allow the deduction in case employee’s contribution to PF end ESI also if it has been paid on or before the date of filing of the return of income. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026