RAJMAHAL COAL MINING LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(2), KOLKAA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme allows deposit of employee contributions by the last day of the month. The CIT(Appeals) misinterpreted this as the 3rd day of the month. Therefore, there was no delay in payment as per the applicable scheme.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited, was assessed for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 40,81,018/- for delayed payment of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund was justified when payments were made as per the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, not the general due date.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.11.2022 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.
The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.40,81,018/- with the aid of section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.38,70,71,440/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. A perusal of the record had revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee did not make payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund Account within the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly he disallowed it. Before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority, it was contended by the assessee that there is no delay in making the payments. The ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the written submissions filed before the Tribunal. The synopsis of such submissions is available on pages 1 to 4 of the paper book, which reads as under:- Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited
Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, submitted that in response to the notice, the assessee has pleaded that being a Company engaged in execration of coal, the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme is applicable upon the assessee and as per the Scheme, the employees’ contribution to Provident Fund is to be deposited upto the last day of the month and assessee has deposited the same. He took us through G.S.R. 1726 dated 11.09.1968, which has been amended subsequently. Copy of such regulation is placed as Annexure-C.
On the other hand, ld. D.R. was unable to controvert the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
On due consideration of the record, we are of the view that the ld. 1st Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the controversy in right perspective. As per Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajmahal Coal Mining Limited the payment was to be made upto the last day of every month. Earlier it was on 15th day of the month. However, later on, it was changed to the last day of the month, the expression “on or before 3 (the last day) of every month”. The word ‘3’ is to represent the footnote at the end of the provision of the Scheme. The ld. CIT(Appeals) construed it as 3rd day of the month. All these aspects have been explained by the assessee in its written submission elaborately. After examining the facts in the light of the above Scheme, we find that there is no delay in depositing the employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund Account as per the Scheme of Coal Mines and, therefore, no disallowance is to be made. The appeal of the assessee is allowed and disallowance of Rs.40,81,018/- is deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16thMarch, 2023.
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 →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026