Tribunal Upholds Disallowance of Late Provident Fund Deduction, Rejects Appeal

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the appellant's claimed deduction for employees' contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance due to late payment, reducing the disallowed amount. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that delayed deposition of contributions was non-deductible under the Income Tax Act. Despite arguments based on pending cases and interpretation of due dates, the Court found no substantial legal questions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 36(a)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for employees' contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance.
2. Interpretation of due date for payment of contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-assessee claimed a deduction of &8377; 15,86,762/- for employees' contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act, 1961. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed this amount as it was not paid within the due date specified.

2. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, stating that the due date for payment should be considered from the date of disbursement of wages, not the month to which the wages pertain. This decision was based on a previous court ruling and resulted in a reduced disallowance of &8377; 8,03,104/-.

3. The appellant, still aggrieved by the partial disallowance, appealed to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, citing a precedent where delayed deposition of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was deemed non-deductible in income computation under Section 28 of the Act.

4. The appellant's advocate highlighted a pending Supreme Court case related to a similar issue and argued for the appeal to be considered despite a delay. Referring to other court decisions, it was emphasized that the due date for deposition to PF and ESI should be interpreted in relation to the month for which wages are to be paid.

5. The Court noted that the appellant's reliance on certain past decisions was not applicable to the current case, as the provisions of Section 36(i)(v)(a) of the Act were relevant here. Consequently, none of the proposed questions of law were deemed substantial, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---