C I T vs. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD

Facts

The appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) challenge orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for various assessment years (2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07). The assessee, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., claimed deductions for payments of GPF, CPF, and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that these amounts were not paid by the respective due dates under the GPF, CPF, and ESI Acts, and therefore, were not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B. The assessee argued that the payments were made before the due date for filing income tax returns under Section 139, making them allowable.

Held

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's orders. It was an admitted fact that the entire amount was deposited by the assessee on or before the due date of filing the returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. The Court relied on its previous judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Viaran Nigam Ltd. (of even date). In these precedents, it was held that if an amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139, it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amounts paid by the assessee towards GPF, CPF, and ESI, though deposited after the respective due dates under those Acts but before the due date for filing income tax returns under Section 139, are allowable as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that if the amounts were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing income tax returns under Section 139, the entire amount was allowable in view of Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the amounts had to be deposited on or before the due date of the respective GPF, CPF, and ESI Acts. Since this condition was not met, the amounts were not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) nor under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.