DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. CRESCENT EPC PROJECTS AND TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS GVK PROJECTS AND TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD.), SECUNDERABAD

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 15.10.2018, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. In various grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance of 14A of Rs.4,43,31,582/- and deletion of addition of Rs.3,51,066/- made u/s.36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to the provident fund and ESI.

2. At the threshold, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in so far as disallowance u/s.14A is concerned, it is an admitted fact that there is no dividend income has been received by the assessee during the year, and therefore, no disallowance u/s. 14A can be made. This he pointed out, is evident from paragraph 5.8 of the appellate order. Apart from that, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14 in ITAs No.4216 and 4217/Del/2016 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

3. In so far as the deletion of amount of Rs.3,51,006/- towards PF (employee contribution) after the due date under PF regulation but before the due date of filing of return of income, i.e., 30th November, 2015, he submitted that the same also stands covered by the catena of judgments including that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. as reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508 and PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. in of 2018 (Delhi). Further, in support, she also relied upon the following judgments, the copy of which has been placed in the paper book.

Page No. Sr. Case-law Citation No.

3- Harendra Nath Biswas vs DCIT (Kol. Trib.) 22-25 26-27 [2021] 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyd. 4- Salzgitter Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Trib.)

Value Momentum Software Services Pvt. 5- (Hyd. Trib.) 28-31 Ltd. vs DCIT

7. CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321ITR 508 (Del. HC) 33-38 39 8. PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt of 2018 (Del. HC) Ltd.

9. Pawan Kumar vs ACIT (Del. Trib.) 40-44

6. Now coming to the issue of disallowance of payment made to employee’s contribution to PF and ESI, it is not in dispute that the assessee had made the payment after due date under the PF Regulation but before the due date of filing of return, i.e., 30th November, 2015. The details of contribution made by the company are as under:

Sl Month Due date of Date of No. of days Amount of N depositing deposit of delay employee o contribution (INR) 1. May 2014 15 June 2014 26 June 2014 6 days 151,098 2. August 201 15 Sept. 17 Sept 2014 2 days 122,564 2014 3. Feb. 2015 15 March 16 March 1 day 77,404 2015 2015 Total 3,51,066

“In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321

ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actuall 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 Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Appeal is dismissed.”