M/S SAM STREAMLINE SYSTEMS P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5 (1), INDORE
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 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The employees' contributions paid after the due dates under PF/ESI laws but within the time allowed under Section 43B are allowable as a deduction.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed the delayed payment of employees' contributions to Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance. The assessee had deposited these contributions within the time allowed under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, i.e., by the due date for filing the return of income, although after the due dates prescribed by PF/ESI laws.
What were the issues?
Whether delayed payment of employees' contributions to PF/ESI, if paid within the extended due date under Section 43B, is allowable as a deduction. Applicability of Finance Act, 2021 amendments to prior assessment years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)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. Vegetable Products Ltd.2,664 citing88 ITR 192 · 1973 · SC
- CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.1,629 citing321 ITR 508 · 2010 · HC · Read judgment
- (i) CIT v. Merchem Ltd.631 citing378 ITR 443 · 2015 · HC
- CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn540 citing41 Taxmann.com 100 · 2014 · HC
- CIT v. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd.191 citing250 Taxmann 32 · 2017 · HC
- Sagun Foundry Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT152 citing145 DTR 265 · 2017 · HC
- Pr. CIT v. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd.46 citing115 Taxmann.com 340 · 2020 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS.MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
These appeals are filed by different assessees against the respective orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal) [“Ld. CIT(A)”] as per the following details:
S.No. Assessee Assessment Date of CIT(A)’s Year order ITANo.56/Ind/2022 1. 2018-19 23.12.2021 Palash Badole ITANo.60/Ind/2022 2. 2018-19 07.01.2022 SAM Streamline Systems (P). Ltd. ITANo.66/Ind/2022 3. 2019-20 16.03.2022 Such Media Publication Pvt. Ltd.
The registry has informed that the Appeal at S.No. 2 was required to be filed by 08.03.2022 but the same was actually filed on 23.03.2022, after a delay of 15 days. The Ld. AR prayed that the delay has occurred due to Covid-19 Pandemic. The Ld. AR further placed reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 read with Misc. Applications, by which suo motu extension of the limitation-period for filing of appeals w.e.f. 15.03.2020 under all laws has been granted and hence there is no delay in fact. We confronted the Ld. DR who agreed to the submission of Ld. AR. In view of this, the appeal is proceeded with for hearing, there being no delay.
As the issue involved in all these appeals is same except the difference of amounts involved, we proceed to decide all these by this common order. & others Palash Badole & others Page 3 of 7 4. The return of income filed by assessee was processed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(1) of the Act after making disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees’ contributions to Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance (“PF/ESI”). The assessee challenged these disallowances in appeal to Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Again the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred appeal before us.
The sole controversy involved is related to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delayed payment of employee’s contributions to PF / ESI.
The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating that though the assessee had not deposited the employees’ contributions to PF / ESI upto the due dates prescribed under the PF / ESI laws, yet the assessee had deposited the same to the respective funds within the time permitted u/s 43B of the Act i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing the return of income and hence no disallowance is attracted in view of numerous decisions of Hon’ble High Courts favouring the assessee. Some of the decisions relied upon by Ld. AR are mentioned below:
(a) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in AIMIL Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508.
(b) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sagun Foundary Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 145 DTR 265 (c) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. / Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill (2017) 250 Taxman 32 6.1 Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is also squarely covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions of this very Bench of ITAT.
6.2 Ld. AR also submitted that even otherwise the impugned disallowance is debatable in nature and outside the scope of section & others Palash Badole & others Page 4 of 7 143(1)(iv) of the Act invoked by the Ld. AO and therefore also not sustainable, as held by ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in M/s. S.V. Engineering Constructions India (P) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.130/Viz/2021) order dated 23.09.2021.
Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities. He further submitted that in following decisions it has been held that once the employees’ contributions are paid after the due dates under PF / ESI laws, disallowance is attracted even if the assessee has made payments within the time allowed u/s 43B i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing of return:
(a) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100 (b) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT vs. M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2020) 115 taxmann.com 340 (c) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 443 7.1 Ld. DR further submitted that the Finance Act, 2021 has also inserted Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B as under:
Section 36(1)(va): “Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date" under this clause;
Section 43B: “Explanation 5.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.”
& others Palash Badole & others Page 5 of 7 7.2 Ld. DR submitted that with the introduction of these amendments, it is very much clear that the due dates specified in section 43B shall not apply. According to the Ld. DR, the impact would be such that if the employees’ contributions are paid after the due dates under the PF / ESI laws, disallowance would happen. The Ld. DR further submitted that the words “… shall be deemed never to have been applied …” appearing in these newly inserted Explanations clearly demonstrate that the amendments, though inserted from 01.04.2021, are clarificatory in nature and hence they would apply retrospectively. Therefore, according the Ld. DR the amendments are applicable to the assessment-year involved in the present appeal too and hence the disallowance made by Ld. AO is very much in accordance with the law.
We have considered the rival contentions and submission of both sides and also perused the relevant materials available on record. Before proceeding further we would like to mention that the assessee has deposited the impugned contributions to the PF / ESI, though after due date under PF / ESI law but within the time allowed u/s 43B i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing return of income and there is no dispute on this point by revenue.
Regarding the decisions relied upon by both sides, we observe that there are divergent views of Hon’ble High Courts on the allowability of employees’ contributions to PF / ESI paid after due dates under the PF / ESI laws but within the time allowed u/s 43B. While the Ld. AR has relied upon various decisions favouring to the assessee, the Ld. DR has quoted the decisions against the assessee. We are also informed by both sides that there is no decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh on this issue. In this situation, we are mindful of the decision in Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. In view of this, the decisions favouring the assessee shall get preference over the decisions against the assessee. Being so we hold that the & others Palash Badole & others Page 6 of 7 employees contributions paid after due date under PF / ESI law but within the time allowed u/s 43B, are allowable as deduction.
Regarding the amendments made through Finance Act, 2021, it is specifically mentioned by the legislature that the amendments are effective from 01.04.2021. Further the Memorandum explaining the Provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 clearly prescribes thus:
“These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.”
Thus, the legislature itself has categorically stated that the amendments shall apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Therefore these amendments are not applicable to the assessment- years preceding the assessment-year 2021-22 i.e. not applicable upto assessment-year 2020-21. This has also been held so in several decisions of ITAT Benches including following:
(a) ITAT Kolkata in Harendra Nath Biswas Vs. DCIT, for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 16.07.2021 (b) ITAT Hyderabad in Salzgitter Hydraulics Private Limited Vs. ITO, ITA No. 644/Hyd/2020 for A.Y. 2019-20, order dated 15.06.2021 (c) ITAT Jodhpur in Akbar Mohammad Vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore ITA No. 108 &109 / Jodh / 2021 for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, order dated 31.01.2022
It is also noteworthy that this Bench has recently decided several appeals, a few mentioned hereunder, wherein the similar disallowance made by Ld. AO has been deleted:
(a) / Ind / 2021 Shri Virendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, order dated 30.03.2022
ITA No.56/Ind/2022 & others Palash Badole & others Page 7 of 7 (b) / Ind / 2021 M/s Prestige Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT-4(1), Indore order dated 30.03.2022 (c) / Ind / 2021 Kamal Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore, order dated 30.03.2022
In view of foregoing discussion, we observe that employees’ contributions to PF / ESI paid after due date under PF / ESI laws but within the time allowed u/s 43B i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing of return is allowable as deduction in computing taxable income of business and the assesse had rightly claimed the same. Therefore the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) were not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. We therefore delete the disallowance made by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, these appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules 1963 on 23.08. 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 →- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026