VINOD MALIK,BALLABGARH vs. ITO WARD 2(5), FARIDABAD

Though the assessee has raised several grounds, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A), NFAC was justified in upholding the disallowances made on account of employees contribution of Provident Fund/ ESI in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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 Page | 2 Vinod Malik 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.

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.”

The ld. AR vehemently relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of P.R. Packaging Services in dated 07/12/22 (authored by the undersigned) wherein this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. We find that the said decision was rendered by applying the provisions of Section 143(1)(iv) of the Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claim of deduction towards employee’s contribution to PF & ESI made by the assessee becomes an incorrect claim warranting primafacie adjustment u/s.143(1) of the Act. Hence, the decision relied by the ld. AR would not advance the case of the assessee. With regard to yet another decision relied by the ld.AR on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd vs DCIT in ITA No. 1785/Mum/2021 dated 27.04.2022, we find that this decision was rendered before the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence the reliance placed on the said tribunal decision also would not advance the case of the revenue.

Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claim of deduction made by the assessee towards employees’ contribution to PF and ESI would become an incorrect claim