Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vinay Zibbu, Vs. ACIT, D-1/124, 2nd Floor, Circle-34(1), Sector-16, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. PAN: AAEPZ5493N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Priyanshu Goyal, CA Revenue by : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28th August, 2020 of the CIT(A)-13, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2018-19.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.14,59,784/- made by the AO in the order passed u/s 154 of the IT Act by invoking the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act on account of late deposit of employee/employer contribution of PF and ESI.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and doing the business of security agency. He filed his return of income on 27th October, 2018 declaring the total income at Rs.21,43,950/-. The CPC, Bangalore in the order processed u/s 143(1)(a) proposed adjustment of Rs.14,59,784/- on account of late deposit of PF/ESI. The assessee filed an application stating that the payments have been duly deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income. Finally, in the intimation-cum-order u/s 154 of the Act dated 15th June, 2019 the CPC Bangalore assessed the income at Rs.37,53,733/- against the returned income of Rs.22,93,949/- by making an addition of Rs.14,59,784/- on account of late deposit of late deposit of employee/employer contribution of PF and ESI 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.
In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following various decisions including the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 417 (Del) sustained the addition made by the CPC, Bangalore holding that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the IT Act due to failure on his part in depositing the employees’ contribution on or before the due date.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that a number of High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court and the coordinate Benches of the 2
Tribunal have taken the view that where the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI have been deposited before the due date of filing of the return, no disallowance can be made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act. He submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in order dated 10th September, 2018, following its earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., reported in 320 ITR 508, has held that “the legislative intent was / is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under the Act.”
Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Dee Development Engineers Ltd., ITA 4959/Del/2016, order dated 08.04.2021, he submitted that the Tribunal, following the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has decided the issue in favour of assessee where the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI were deposited after the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund and Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 but before the due date of filing of return. Relying on various other decisions as per his case law compilation, he submitted that under identical circumstances, the courts/coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have held that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) can be made if the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI have been deposited prior to the due date of filing of the return of income.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the CIT(A).
I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. The only question to be decided in the grounds raised by the assessee is regarding the allowability of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI if deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act, but, before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee, in the instant case, has deposited the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI after the relevant date prescribed under the PF and ESI Act, but, before the due date of filing the return of income. I find, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that the legislative intent was / is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. The Hon’ble High Court has further held that legislative intent and objective is not to treat belated payment of Employee's Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee's State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under the Act. I find, following the above decision the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Dee Development Engineers Ltd. (supra) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made if the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI are deposited after the due
Acts, but, paid before the due date of filing of return. Since the assessee, in the instant case has, admittedly, deposited the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing of the return of income, therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), I hold that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(v) r.w.s. Section 2(24)(x) can be made in the instant case. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.