Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT, (Appeal), Addl/JCIT(A) Madurai dt. 12/01/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19 wherein the sole ground of appeal
of appeal relates to sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 6,53,089/- on account of delay in deposit of employee’s share of PF contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
2. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the due date of deposit of employee’s share of PF contribution of Rs. 6,53,089/- falls due on National Holiday i.e, on 15/08/2017 and given that, the assessee has deposited the said contribution on the next working day i.e; 16/08/2017. It was submitted that this fact is not under dispute and same is apparent from the impugned order wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the contents of the tax audit report so submitted by the assessee. 2.1 It was submitted that since the due date falls on a date which was National Holiday, the deposit could have been made only on the day following the National Holiday and the assessee duly complied with its obligation and had made necessary compliance on 16/08/2017. It was submitted that exactly identical matter came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of M/s Aero Club Vs. Asst. CIT (in dt. 05/09/2023) wherein the issue for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court and for which the appeal was admitted on the question of law was “whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal misdirected on facts and in law in failing to notice that Rs. 44,28,453/- were the amount payable towards the PF and Rs. 72,131/-, the amount payable towards ESI fall for due on National Holiday 15/08/2018 and therefore the deposits made on the following day i.e; 16/08/2018 was amenable to deduction.”
2.2 It was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decided the matter in favour of the assessee by relying on its earlier decision in case of Pr. CIT-7 Vs. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. and the relevant findings are contained at para 4 of its order and the contents thereof read as under:
“4. We had the occasion to deal with a similar question of law in titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. The observations made by us therein, being apposite, arc extracted hereafter: "5. Mr Deepak Chopra, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that in this particular matter, since the deposit of the employee's contribution towards the provident fund was made on 16.08.2018, following a National Holiday i.e., 15.08.2018, the deduction claimed would have to be allowed, as steps had been taken by the respondent/assessee towards the deposit of the said amount on 14.08.2018.
Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that since the respondent/assessee had deposited the employee's contribution towards the provident fund amounting to Rs. 1,56,12,404/- on 16.08.2018, the Assessing Officer (AO) had rightly disallowed the deduction, as the due date was 15.08.2018.
According to us, this submission advanced by Mr Rai cannot be accepted. Since the due date fell on a date which was a National Holiday, the deposit could have been made by the respondent/assessee only on the 1 date which followed the National Holiday.
Mr Chopra, as noticed on 12.01.2023, was right that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would help the respondent/assessee to tide over the objections raised on behalf of the appellant/revenue. Therefore, the second question of law, as framed via the order dated 9. 12.01.2023, which is extracted hereinabove, is answered against the appellant/revenue and in favour of the respondent/assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is closed, in the aforesaid terms. 10.
In view of what is stated hereinabove, the question of law, as framed, is answered in favour of the appellate/assessee and against the respondent/revenue.”