NEETA TOURS AND TRAVELS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15) Neeta Tours and Travels, D-1, Hari Bhakti Compound, Retibunder, Opp. Dowellss Co., Ghodbunder Road, Kashimira, Thane-401104. PAN: AAEFN3413G ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Room No.27, B Wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Road No. 162, MIDC, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Hiten P. Shah, AR Respondent by : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 27/09/2022 Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short ‘NFAC’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] vide order dated 30.05.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels

Sr.No. Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of Appeal. 1 The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance 2,33,500/- of Rs. 5,92,809/- in respect of PF and ESIC, which were paid before the due date of filing of return. The Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the 16,067/- disallowance of Rs. 40,889/-, U/S 80G. 2 The Hon’ble CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the 4,08,967/- addition of Rs. 10, 38,000/- on account of cash deposit in Punjab & Sind Bank Account. Total Tax Effect Rs. 6,58,534/-

3 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels

4 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels

adjudicator has to enforce, and the assessee has to comply with, to secure a valid deduction. [Para 31]

The scheme of the provisions relating to deductions, such as sections 32-37, on the other hand, deal primarily with business, commercial or professional expenditure, under various heads (including depreciation). Each of these deductions has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions would render the claim vulnerable to rejection. In this scheme the deduction made by employers to approved provident fund schemes, is the subject matter of section 36(iv). It is noteworthy, that this provision was part of the original IT Act; it has largely remained unaltered. On the other hand, section 36(1) (va) was specifically inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from 1-4-1988. Through the same amendment, by section 3(b), section 2(24) - which defines various kinds of "income" - inserted clause (x). This is a significant amendment, because Parliament intended that amounts not earned by the assessee, but received by it, - whether in the form of deductions, or otherwise, as receipts, were to be treated as income. The inclusion of a class of receipt, i.e., amounts received (or deducted from the employees) was to be part of the employer/assessee's income. Since these amounts were not receipts that belonged to the assessee, but were held by it, as trustees, as it were, section 36(1)(va) was inserted specifically to ensure that if these receipts were deposited in the EPF/ESI accounts of the employees concerned, they could be treated as deductions. Section 36(1)(va) was hedged with the condition that the amounts/receipts had to be deposited by the employer, with the EPF/ESI, on or before the due date. The last expression "due date" was dealt with in the explanation as the date by which such amounts had to be credited by the employer, in the concerned enactments such as EPF/ESI Acts. Importantly, such a condition (i.e., depositing the amount on or before the due date) has not been enacted in relation to the employer's contribution (i.e., section 36(1) (iv)). [Para 32] ■ The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under section 36(1) (va) differently from those under section 36(1) (iv). The latter (hereinafter, "employers' contribution") is described as "sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund". However, the phraseology of section 36(1) (va) differs from section 36(1)(iv), it enacts that "any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of

5 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels

section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date." The essential character of an employees' contribution, i.e., that it is part of the employees' income, held in trust by the employer is underlined by the condition that it has to be deposited on or before the due date. [Para 33] ■ It is therefore, manifest that the definition of contribution in section 2(c) is used in entirely different senses, in the relevant deduction clauses. The differentiation is also evident from the fact that each of these contributions is separately dealt with in different clauses of section 36(1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing section 36(1) (va) along with section 2(24) (x), was aware of the distinction between the two types of contributions. There was a statutory classification, under the IT Act, between the two. [Para 34] ■ It is evident that the intent of the lawmakers was clear that sums referred to in clause (b) of section 43B, i.e., "sum payable as an employer, by way of contribution" refers to the contribution by the employer. The reference to "due date" in the second proviso to section 43B was to have the same meaning as provided in the explanation to section 36(1)(va). Parliament therefore, through this amendment, sought to provide for identity in treatment of the two kinds of payments: those made as contributions, by the employers, and those amounts credited by the employers, into the provident fund account of employees, received from the latter, as their contribution. Both these contributions had to necessarily be made on or before the due date. [Para 37] ■ When Parliament introduced section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer's contribution (Section 34(1) (iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee's contribution being considered as part of the employer's earning. On the application of the original principles of law it could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988-89, inserting section 36(1) (va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. The memorandum introducing the Finance Bill clearly stated that the provisions - especially second proviso to section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24) (x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute) as income - it is the character of the amount that is important, i.e., not income earned. Thus, amounts retained by the employer from out of the employee's income

6 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels

by way of deduction etc. were treated as income in the hands of the employer. The significance of this provision is that on the one hand it brought into the fold of "income" amounts that were receipts or deductions from employees income; at the time, payment within the prescribed time - by way of contribution of the employees' share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers' contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees' contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures or out-goings forming part of the assessees' liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone entitles an assessee to the benefit of deduction from the total income. The essential objective of section 43B is to ensure that if assessees are following the mercantile method of accounting, nevertheless, the deduction of such liabilities, based only on book entries, would not be given. To pass muster, actual payments were a necessary pre-condition for allowing the expenditure. [Para 52] ■ The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law - in terms of section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of section 2(24) (x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1) (va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts - the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since it is the deduction from the employees' income and held in trust by the employer. This marked distinction has to be borne while interpreting the obligation of every assessee under section 43B. [Para 53] ■ The reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer's obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. In the case of these liabilities, what constitutes the due date is defined by the statute.

7 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels

Nevertheless, the assessees are given some leeway in that as long as deposits are made beyond the due date, but before the date of filing the return, the deduction is allowed. That, however, cannot apply in the case of amounts which are held in trust, as it is in the case of employees' contributions- which are deducted from their income. They are not part of the assessee employer's income, nor are they heads of deduction per se in the form of statutory pay out. They are others' income, monies, only deemed to be income, with the object of ensuring that they are paid within the due date specified in the particular law. They have to be deposited in terms of such welfare enactments. It is upon deposit, in terms of those enactments and on or before the due dates mandated by such concerned law, that the amount which is otherwise retained, and deemed an income, is treated as a deduction. Thus, it is an essential condition for the deduction that such amounts are deposited on or before the due date. If such interpretation were to be adopted, the non obstante clause under section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. [Para 54]”

8 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels

"above stated account is owned by some fictitious person and we have also lodged a police compliant against them. It is also learnt that said account is already closed and no further details are available. Similar issue was there in the past years, wherein the assessing officer has added such amount to the income of the firm." 4.1 The above contention of the assessee that such an account is not known to him and operated by some fictitious person, is not acceptable and deserves to be negated. On the perusal of ITS details it is seen that the above account is operated by one. Ridhesh Sanghavi Further, from the details of unsecured loan submitted by assessee it is seen that Ridhesh Singhval is one of the loan creditor for the assessee firm. Thus Ridhesh Sanghval is not a fictitious person as stated by the assessee. Onus was upon the assessee to explain the nature and the source of the said cash deposits in the Punjab and Sind bank account. In the instant case assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of above mentioned cash deposits; and thus the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the cash credits in the above bank account is not established. If assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the cash credits in the books of account. all the amounts so credited may be charged to tax as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Moreover, assessee has himself agreed for the said addition by stating that in earlier years assessing officers have added the amount deposited in Punjab and Sind bank to the total income of the firm. Thus, as per the provisions of the section 68 of Income Tax act, 1961, the said cash credits are deemed to be the income of the assessee firm for the year under consideration. 4.2 In view of the above discussion, total cash deposited into the Punjab and Sind bank account for 10,38,000/- during the year under consideration is added to the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources......" 9. In response to this assessee submitted that this Account does not belong to them and some fictitious person opened, deposited and operated the same. Assessee further submitted that in regard they have already lodged a police complaint vide page no.1 of the Paper Book. We further observed that this police complaint lodged by assessee dated 16.03.2016 is very well in advance to the date of finalization of order i.e. 09.12.2016.

9 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 23/12/2022 SK, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�(अ)/The CIT(A)-

10 ITA No. 1872/Mum/2022-Neeta Tours and Travels