ITAT allows deduction for delayed PF ESI contributions made before section 139(1) return filing deadline

The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding delayed contributions to Provident Fund and ESI. Following the precedent in Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd., the tribunal held that delayed deposits of employee contributions made after the statutory due date but before the income tax return filing deadline under section 139(1) are deductible in computing business income. The disallowance of such contributions during return processing under section 143(1)(a) was deemed unwarranted, as payments made before the IT return due date qualify for deduction despite exceeding the permissible time limit under the relevant labor statute.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contribution of Employee's towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Permissibility of adjustments under Section 143(1) based on the tax audit report.
3. Retrospective or prospective application of the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contribution of Employee's towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant had deposited the employee's PF and ESI contributions after the due date specified under the respective acts but before the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1). The CPC disallowed these payments, and the CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, citing recent amendments to Section 36 in the Finance Act, 2021. The CIT(A) reasoned that the employer must deposit the contributions on or before the due date under the PF and ESI acts to be eligible for deduction.

2. Permissibility of adjustments under Section 143(1) based on the tax audit report:
The tribunal noted that the adjustments under Section 143(1) should be based on material facts apparent from the return itself. The tribunal emphasized that the tax audit report, being an opinion of an independent professional, cannot bind the assessee. The tribunal highlighted that the tax auditor's observations should not automatically lead to disallowances under Section 143(1) if they contradict binding judicial precedents. The tribunal criticized the CPC for not providing specific reasons for rejecting the assessee's objections and for using standard template responses, which do not reflect a proper application of mind.

3. Retrospective or prospective application of the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021:
The tribunal discussed the prospective nature of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B. The tribunal noted that these amendments clarify that the provisions of Section 43B do not apply to employee contributions, which must be deposited by the due date under the respective statutes. The tribunal observed that these amendments should not apply to periods before 1st April 2021, and therefore, disallowances for earlier periods should not be made based on these amendments.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned adjustment in the processing of the return under Section 143(1) was vitiated in law. The tribunal emphasized that the CPC must consider the assessee's objections judiciously and provide specific reasons for any disallowances. The tribunal also reiterated that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and should not affect assessments for periods before 1st April 2021. The tribunal followed the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt Ltd., upholding the plea of the assessee.

---