ALSISAR HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

We have heard the ld. AR and perused the materials available on record including the case laws cited by both the parties. In this case, it is noted that the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.2,82,166/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that payments of employees contribution towards EPF and PF had not been made on or before the due date by the employer as per respective Acts which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case and the case laws cited by both the parties. The Bench has observed that the recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in the case of Checkmate Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1, 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC)/Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employee’s contribution to PF/ESI and the due date specified u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act shall apply for determination of deductibility of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI. The relevant portion of the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT-1 (supra) is reproduced as under:-

‘’53. 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.

In the opinion of this Court, 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 Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment. The decisions of the other High Courts, holding to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. For these reasons, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.’’ Similar issue has also been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Strides Arcolab Ltd. vide its order dated 29-11-2022 Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.9009 of 2021 [2023] 147 taxmann.com 202 SC)]. The relevant head note is reproduced as under:- Section 36(1)(va), read with section 2(24) and 43B of the Income Tax Act – Employee’s contributions (PF/ESI) – High Court by impugned order held that Tribunal was correct in deleting disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) being employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESI even though same were not deposited in respective fund within stipulated time – Apex Court in case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178/ [2023] 290 Taxman 19/[2022] 448 ITR 518/2022 SCC Online Sc 1423, held that non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of employee’s contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part of assessee-employer’s income and, thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee’s contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. – Whether in view of the said judgement of Supreme Court, impugned order of High Court was to be set aside – Held , yes [Para 4) [In favour of Revenue] For the sake of convenience and brevity of the case, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Strides Arcolab Ltd. (supra) is also reproduced as under:- ‘’1.Leave granted.

As per the Office record, Service is complete on the sole respondent but none has entered appearance on behalf of the Respondnet Assessee.

Mr. Balbir Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant submits that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely answered in favour of the Revenue by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 12-10-2022 in Checkmate Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Services (P) Ltd. vs CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178/[2023] 290 Taxman 19/[2022] 448 ITR 518/2022 SCC Online SC 1423 4. In view of the above, the impunged judgement dated 22-03-2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is set aside and the appeal is allowed in terms of the cited decision.’’ It may be mentioned that similar issue has also been decided by the ITAT Delhi Bench in favour of the Revenue in the case of Salveen Kaur Vs Income Tax Office vide its order darted 9th January 2023 (in IT Appeal Nos. 2197,2249, 2250 and 2293 (Delhi) of 2022 – A.Y. 2017-18 to 2019- 20 [2023] 147 taxmann.co. 402 (Delhi-Trib) by observing as under:- ‘’4. The undisputed fact in the captioned appeals is that there was a delay in depositing the employees’ contribution and the contribution has been deposited beyond the date stipulated under the relevantFund Act.

Though the quarrel is no more res integra, as it has been settledby the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd 143 Taxmann.com 178. But, before us, the decision ofthe co-ordinate bench at Mumbai has been placed in the case of PRPackaging Service in and it has been seriouslyargued that the co- ordinate bench has considered the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court and yet decided the quarrel in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue.

Another argument taken before us is that the disallowance made by the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and,therefore, cannot be sustained.

We have carefully perused the decision of the co- ordinate bench in the case of M/s P R Packaging Services [supra]. We find that the co-ordinate bench has not given any independent finding but has simply relied upon another decision of the co- Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ordinate bench in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd 195 ITD 142 wherein the co-ordinate bench has based its decision on the interpretation and binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd [supra], the Tribunal has held that the CPC Bengaluru cannot override the binding decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court while making the impugned disallowance on account of delay in the deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI.

With our utmost respect to the findings of the co- ordinate bench [supra], we are of the considered view that the co- ordinate bench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be pertinent to refer to the most relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the impugned quarrel which read as under:- “32. 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 fulfillment 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, w.e.f. 01-04-1988. 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) were 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 Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 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)).

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 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.

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.

It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act,1987, introduced to Section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in Section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill,1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: “Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising contributions to the provident fund or any funds set upunder the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, or any other fund for the welfare of employees 12.1. The existing provisions provide for a deduction in respect of any payment by way of contribution to the provident fund or a superannuation fund or any other fund for welfare of employees in the year in which the liabilities are actually discharged (Section 43B).The effect of the amendment brought about by the Finance act, is that no deduction will be allowed in the assessment of the employer, unless such contribution is paid into the fund on or before the due date. “Due date”means the date by which an employer is required to credit the contribution to the employees account in the relevant fund or under the relevant provisions of any law or term of the contract of service or otherwise. (Explanation to Section 36 (1) of the Finance Act)

A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va).Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) foremployers’ contribution and employees’ contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: “15. …It is important to note once again that, by Finance Act, 2003, not only the second proviso is deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about an uniformity in tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand vis-a-vis contributions to welfare fundsof employee(s) on the other. This is one more reason whywe hold that the Finance Act, 2003, is retrospective in operation. Moreover, the judgement in Allied Motors (P)Limited (supra) is delivered by a Bench of three learned Judges, which is binding on us. Accordingly, we hold that Finance Act, 2003 will operate retrospectively with effectfrom 1st April, 1988 [when the first proviso stoodinserted]. Lastly, we may point out the hardship and the invidious discrimination which would be caused to theassessee(s) if the contention of the Department is to be accepted that Finance Act, 2003, 2003, to the above extent, operated prospectively. Take an example - in the present case, the respondents have deposited the contributions with the R.P.F.C. after 31st March [end of accounting year] but before filing of the Returns under the Income Tax Act and the date of payment falls after the due date under the Employees' Provident Fund Act,they will be denied deduction for all times. In view of the second proviso, which stood on the statute book at the relevant time, each of such assessee(s) would not be entitled to deduction under Section 43B of the Act for all times. They would lose the benefit of deduction even in the year of account in which they pay the contributions to the welfare funds, whereas a defaulter, who fails to pay the contribution to the welfare fund right upto 1st April,2004, and who pays the contribution after 1st April, 2004, would get the benefit of deduction under Section 43B of the Act. In our view, therefore, Finance Act, 2003,to the extent indicated above, should be read as retrospective. It would, therefore, operate from 1st April, 1988, when the first proviso was introduced. It is true that the Parliament has explicitly stated that Finance Act, 2003, will operate with effect Alsisar Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. from 1st April,2004. However, the matter before us involves the principle of construction to be placed on the provisions of Finance Act, 2003”. XXXX 48. One of the rules of interpretation of a tax statute is that if a deduction or exemption is available on compliance with certain conditions, the conditions are to be strictly complied with. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Exercise 2004Supp (4) SCR 35. This rule is in line with the general principle that taxing statutes are to be construed strictly, and that there is no room for equitable considerations.

That deductions are to be granted only when the conditions which govern them are strictly complied with. This has been laid down in State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements as follows: “23…. In our view, the provisions of exemption clause should be strictly construed and if the condition under which the exemption was granted stood changed onaccount of any subsequent event the exemption would not operate.

In our view, an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the industrial policy and the exemption notifications.

In our view, the failure to comply with the requirements renders the writ petition filed by the respondent liable to be dismissed. While mandatory rule must be strictly observed, substantial compliance might suffice in the case of a directory rule.

Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein.” XXXX 53. 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.

If any narrow interpretation is given to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra], it would not only defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act but also defeat the very purpose of the Legislators and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be made redundant because there would be discrimination and chaos, in as much as, those returns