KAVUNGAL VAREED ITTEERA,KERALA vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & Ms. PADMAVATHY S.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.855/Coch/2022 Assessment Year : 2020-21
Kavungal Vareed Itteera, Vs. The Assistant V/533-C, Kuttikad P.O., Commissioner Chalakdy – 680 724. of Income Tax, Kerala. Ernakulam. PAN : AAEPI 4732K APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Date of hearing : 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order dated 13.06.2022 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [NFAC] in relation to Assessment Year 2020-21. The only issue involved in this appeal is disallowance of PF/ESI.
The assessee is an individual who filed his return for AY 2020- 21 on 15.1.2021 declaring income of Rs.3,26,720. Intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 28.10.2021 was passed with a disallowance of contribution to PF/ESI amounting to Rs.71,21,830. The assessee filed
ITA No.855/Coch/2022 Page 2 of 6
appeal before the CIT(Appeals) contending that the entire dues of Rs.71,21,830 relating to PF and ESI was paid before the due date for filing the return and hence there could not have been any disallowance. The CIT(Appeals) following various judicial precedents upheld the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and prayed for deleting the disallowance since the contribution to PF & ESI was made before the due date of filing the return.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) has considered the issue of whether the employees contribution paid before due date for filing the return of income u/s.139(1) whether otherwise allowable u/s.43B, putting to rest the contradicting decisions of various High Court. The relevant extract of the decision is as given below –
When Parliament introduced Section 43B, what was on the statute book, was only employer’s contribution (Section 34(1)(iv)). At that point in time, there was no question of employee’s contribution being considered as part of the employer’s earning. On the application of the original principles of law it could have been treated only as receipts not amounting to income. When Parliament introduced the amendments in 1988- 89, inserting Section 36(1)(va) and simultaneously inserting the second proviso of Section 43B, its intention was not to treat the disparate nature of the amounts, similarly. As discussed previously, the memorandum introducing the Finance Bill clearly
ITA No.855/Coch/2022 Page 3 of 6
stated that the provisions – especially second proviso to Section 43B - was introduced to ensure timely payments were made by the employer to the concerned fund (EPF, ESI, etc.) and avoid the mischief of employers retaining amounts for long periods. That Parliament intended to retain the separate character of these two amounts, is evident from the use of different language. Section 2(24)(x) too, deems amount received from the employees (whether the amount is received from the employee or by way of deduction authorized by the statute) as income - it is the character of the amount that is important, i.e., not income earned. Thus, amounts retained by the employer from out of the employee’s income by way of deduction etc. were treated as income in the hands of the employer. The significance of this provision is that on the one hand it brought into the fold of “income” amounts that were receipts or deductions from employees income; at the time, payment within the prescribed time – by way of contribution of the employees’ share to their credit with the relevant fund is to be treated as deduction (Section 36(1)(va)). The other important feature is that this distinction between the employers’ contribution (Section 36(1)(iv)) and employees’ contribution required to be deposited by the employer (Section 36(1)(va)) was maintained - and continues to be maintained. On the other hand, Section 43B covers all deductions that are permissible as expenditures, or out-goings forming part of the assessees’ liability. These include liabilities such as tax liability, cess duties etc. or interest liability having regard to the terms of the contract. Thus, timely payment of these alone entitle an assessee to the benefit of deduction from the total income. The essential objective of Section 43B is to ensure that if assessees are following the mercantile method of accounting, nevertheless, the deduction of such liabilities, based only on book entries, would not be given. To pass muster, actual payments were a necessary pre-condition for allowing the expenditure. 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
ITA No.855/Coch/2022 Page 4 of 6
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. 54. 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 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. In the case of these liabilities, what constitutes the due date is defined by the statute. Nevertheless, the assessees are given some leeway in that as long as deposits are made beyond the due date, but before the date of filing the return, the deduction is allowed. That, however, cannot apply in the case of amounts which are held in trust, as it is in the case of employees’ contributions- which are deducted from their income. They are not part of the assessee employer’s income, nor are they heads of deduction per se in the form of statutory pay out. They are others’ income, monies, only deemed to be income, with the object of ensuring that they are paid within the due date specified in the particular law. They have to be deposited in terms of such welfare enactments. It is upon deposit, in terms of those enactments and on or before the due dates mandated by such concerned law, that the amount which is otherwise retained, and deemed an income, is treated as a deduction. Thus, it is an essential condition for the deduction that such amounts are deposited on or before the due date. If such interpretation were to be adopted, the non-obstante clause under Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction.
ITA No.855/Coch/2022 Page 5 of 6
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. 5. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) i.e., on or before the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc., for the same to be otherwise allowable u/s.43B. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). The ground taken by the assessee on this issue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of March, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ( PADMAVATHY S ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Bangalore, Dated, the 8th March, 2023.
/Desai S Murthy /
ITA No.855/Coch/2022 Page 6 of 6
Copy to:
Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore/Cochin.
