Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on provident fund disallowance, citing timely payments.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in three appeals regarding the disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund before the due date of filing the return of income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances for the respective assessment years, based on the argument that payments made before the due date should be allowable. The decision aligned with a High Court ruling supporting the assessee's position, emphasizing the importance of reasoned orders by the Assessing Officer in such cases.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund before due date of filing return of income for multiple assessment years.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed three appeals against orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre for different assessment years, all involving disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund before the due date of filing the return of income.

2. The primary contention of the assessee was that no disallowance should be made when employees' contribution to provident fund is deposited before the due date of filing the return.

3. The facts revealed that the assessee, engaged in solid waste management transportation, faced disallowance of employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act due to late remittance. The disallowance was confirmed by the National Faceless Centre and the learned CIT(A) based on relevant statutory provisions, CBDT circulars, and judicial precedents.

4. The assessee argued that a co-ordinate Bench decision favored their stance, emphasizing that the issue was not about the applicability of amendments but the authority of the Central Processing Centre to make such disallowances.

5. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities, citing a decision of the Kerala High Court and asserting that co-ordinate Bench decisions should not override High Court rulings.

6. The core issue in all appeals was whether the Central Processing Centre could disallow late payments of employees' contributions under specific sections of the Act. A recent co-ordinate Bench decision clarified the interpretation of relevant provisions and emphasized the importance of reasoned orders by the AO.

7. The discrepancy arose from the form filed by the assessee, which indicated delayed payments but did not result in disallowance in the total income computation. The assessee contended that payments made before the due date of filing the return should be allowable, as supported by High Court decisions.

8. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances for late deposits of employees' contributions to provident funds.

9. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all three appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances for the respective assessment years.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and judicial precedents considered in the judgment, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of employees' contribution to provident fund before the due date of filing the return of income.

---