AJAY NARESH AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A) NFAC, DELHI
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 disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to EPF/ESIC, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is to be deleted. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 was prospective and not retrospective.
What were the facts?
The assessee deducted employees' contribution to provident fund and ESIC but paid it after the due date specified in the relevant Acts, though before the due date for filing the return of income. The AO made a disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for this late payment.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is permissible for employees' contribution to PF/ESIC paid after the due date under the relevant Act but before the due date for filing the return of income. Applicability of the Finance Act, 2021 amendment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)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
- CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.609 citing368 ITR 749 · 2014 · HC
- 2. Salzgitter Hydraulics Pvt Ltd. v. ITO67 citing128 Taxmann.com 192 · 2021 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM):
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19/08/2021 for the Assessment year 2018-19.
The brief facts are that for the A.Y. 2018-19, intimation under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the CPC in assessee’s case whereby disallowance to the tune of Rs.16,99,705/- under section 36(1)(va) was made with regard to the employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESIC which was duly deducted by the Assessee from the salary of the employees. The said amount was disallowed for the reason that it was paid after the due date specified in the relevant Act; but was paid before the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1). Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
The Assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Ld.CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the Ld.AR contended that the deposit of employees’ contribution to PF / ESIC though made after the due date specified in the relevant Act, was made before the due date of filing of return of income. The Ld.DR had nothing to controvert the same and had relied on the order of the lower authorities.
Having heard both the learned representatives and perused the materials on record alongwith the various judicial pronouncements cited by both the sides, we observe that the Assessee has deposited the employees’ contribution to EPF / ESIC after the due date specified in the relevant Acts but paid before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1). The only substantial issue that arises from this appeal is whether the disallowance of Rs.16,99,705/- on account of late payment of employees’ contribution towards EPF / ESIC is to be allowed considering the various decisions of the co-ordinate benches pertaining to similar issue. The Ld.AR has relied on the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal decision in Prowiz Mansystems Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.818/Del/2021); Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in case of Arjun Yadav vs DCIT (ITA No.351/Chd/2021); Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal in case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P) Ltd [2021] 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad – Trib)and various other decisions. The Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on the basis that due to the delayed deposit of the said amount, the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to disallow the same under sub clause (ii) and (iv) of section 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. The Ld.CIT(A) contended that only Employer’s contribution to PF / ESI is allowable if paid on or before the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(1) and since the employees’ contribution to PF / ESI falls under the ambit of section 36(1)(va), the same is disallowed if paid after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and not before the filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the amendment brought out by the Finance Act, 2021 which has inserted Explanation 2 to clause (va) of section 36(1) and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act.
Taking into consideration the above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the issue relating to delayed deposit of EPF / ESI has already been dealt with by various Hon’ble High Courts including the jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom) wherein it was held that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) that the amendment to section 43B of I.T. Act was applicable to both employer’s as well as employees’ contribution. Furthermore, the amendment brought out in the Finance Act, 2021 was only prospective and not retrospective thereby was applicable only to assessment year 2021-22 onwards and to subsequent years. The same has been reiterated by the decision of various Benches of the Tribunal.
We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the addition made to the tune of Rs.16,99,705/- towards delayed deposit of employees’ contribution towards EPF / ESI paid after the specified due date under the relevant Acts, but nevertheless paid before the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, is hereby directed to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd day of May, 2022.
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 →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026