Provident fund deduction allowed where employee contribution was paid before return filing deadline despite statutory delay.

Prior period expenditure required fresh verification because the record did not show proper examination of crystallisation or supporting evidence; the Tribunal remitted the claim to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after allowing the assessee to place material on record. Employees' contribution to provident fund, though deposited after the statutory due date under the welfare law, was held allowable as a deduction where payment was made before the due date for filing the return, applying the interaction of sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B(b) and binding jurisdictional precedent. The appeal therefore succeeded on the provident fund issue and was partly allowed overall.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prior period expenditure required fresh examination and could be remitted to the Assessing Officer; (ii) Whether employees' contribution to provident fund, deposited after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the return, was allowable as deduction.

Issue (i): Whether prior period expenditure required fresh examination and could be remitted to the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The assessment record did not show proper examination of the prior period expenditure claim. Since the factual foundation as to crystallisation and supporting evidence had not been properly verified, the matter required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer after giving the assessee an opportunity to place relevant material on record.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

Issue (ii): Whether employees' contribution to provident fund, deposited after the statutory due date but before the due date for filing the return, was allowable as deduction.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view, informed by binding jurisdictional precedent, that employee contribution deposited before the due date under section 139(1) should be allowed notwithstanding delay under the relevant provident fund statute. The reasoning proceeded on the interaction between section 2(24)(x), section 36(1)(va), and section 43B(b), and on the line of authorities favouring allowance where payment is made before the return-filing deadline.

Conclusion: The deduction was allowable and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the provident fund contribution issue and the prior period expenditure issue was sent back for reconsideration, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Employees' contribution to provident fund, if deposited before the due date for filing the return, is allowable as deduction notwithstanding delay beyond the date prescribed under the relevant welfare statute, while an inadequately examined prior period expenditure claim may be remitted for fresh adjudication.

---