PADMANABHAN KRISHNAKUMAR,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, ERNAKULAM

The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act.

The brief facts of the case are as follows: For the assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI was disallowed u/s -17/Coch/2022. Sri.Padmanabhan Krishnakumar. 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act for not making payments within the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts (for assessment year 2018-2019 disallowance of Rs.5,09,090 and for assessment year 2019-2020 disallowance of Rs.4,77,420).

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited reported in (2019) 378 ITR 443 (Ker.)].

Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an adjournment application stating that he is indispose, however, the learned AR representing the assessee Sri.Anil K Nayar was present. Therefore, the adjournment application was rejected and the matter was heard on merits. The learned AR relied on the ground raised.

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited (supra).

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee is claiming deduction of delayed remittance of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI, stating that the same has been deposited before the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. However, the Hon’ble -17/Coch/2022. Sri.Padmanabhan Krishnakumar. jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited (supra) had clearly held that employees’ share of PF and ESI, which was not deposited within the due date under the respective Acts, is not an allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court has been elaborately extracted at pages 8 and 9 of the impugned order of the CIT(A), hence, the same is not reproduced below. Therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Merchem Limited (supra), we hold that since the employees’ contribution to PF and ESI was not deposited within the due date specified in the relevant Acts, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.