IPPILI SRINIVASA RAO,VIZIANAGARAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , VIZIANAGARAM

The only issue to be resolved is whether the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction for the employees’ contribution made to PF after the due date prescribed under the PF Act, but before the due date prescribed for filing of income tax return in the light of the provisions contained in section 36(1)(va) of the Act and section 43B(b) of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that there is no distinction between employer and employee contribution after omission of second proviso of section 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004. We find force in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that there is no difference between employees and employer contribution under the PF Act. Section 6 of Provident Fund Act provides for contribution and the manner in which such contribution shall be made. Paragraph 30 of the PF Scheme provides for payment of contributions. As per the said scheme, the employer at the first instance shall make the total contribution including employees’ share. Paragraph 32 provides for recovery of member share of contribution and as per the scheme, the employer can recover the employees’ share from the wages paid to the employee. Therefore, as per the PF Act and scheme of contributions, the contributions means and include both employees’ and employer’s share. Similarly, section 2(c) of the Provident Fund Act defines the contribution to mean a contribution payable in respect of a member under the scheme or the contribution payable in respect of an employee to whom the scheme applies. There is a prescribed mode of payment of contributions under 6 ITA No.133/Viz/2021, A.Y.2018-19 Ippili Srinivasa Rao., Vizianagaram

Section 43B of the Act provides for certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment basis. Sub clause (b) of section 43B of the Act covers any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any Provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees. The proviso to section provides that any sum paid by the assessee on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then no disallowance can be made under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. A careful consideration of section 43B of the Act, it is clear that an extension is granted to the assessee to make the payment of PF contributions or any other fund till the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no difference between employees and employer contribution to PF and if such contribution is made on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then deduction is to be allowed under the provisions of section 43B of the Act.

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408 took the view that the word contribution occurring in section 43B of the Act would include employees’ contribution to PF in the light of the definition of the word contribution as per the provisions of section 2(c) of the PF Act. As per the said section, contribution would mean both employer’s contribution and employees’ contribution. Accordingly, it was held that the provisions of section 43B of the Act allowing deduction for payment made before the due date of filing of Income Tax return cannot be ignored. Similarly, the ITAT, Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Tetra Soft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 40 ITR (Trib) 470 held that when assessee remitted employees’ contribution to PF within due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, amount of employees’ contribution to PF cannot be disallowed. Similar view was upheld by the Chennai bench of the ITAT, in the case of ACIT Vs. Farida Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 46 CCH 29. The coordinate bench held that if assessee had not deposited employees’ contribution towards provident fund up to the due date as prescribed under relevant statute, but before due date of filing of return no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 35 Taxman 616, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and submitted that employees’ contribution to provident fund is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of provident fund Act. The D.R. also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court, reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170, wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that since assessee had not deposited said contribution to respective fund account on the date as prescribed in explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, disallowance made by the A.O. was just and proper. Though, the D.R. relied upon certain judicial precedents which are in favour of the revenue, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vegetables Products Ltd. reported in 88 ITR 192, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted, therefore, by respectfully following the decision of Supreme Court, when divergent views are expressed by different judicial forums, we prefer to follow the views expressed by the Courts which are in favour of the assessee.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also following the judicial precedents as discussed above, we are of the view that there is no distinction between employees’ and employer contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then no disallowance can be made towards employees’ contribution to provident fund. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant details rightly deleted the additions made by the A.O. We do not see any reasons to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, we inclined to uphold the CIT(A) order and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.”