2025 (7) TMI 1911 - AT - Income Tax

S.36(1)(va) disallows delayed employee PF and ESI contributions; AO to reassess delay from salary payment date and hear assessee

ITAT, Delhi (AT) upheld disallowance of delayed employee PF and ESI contributions under s.36(1)(va), aligning with SC precedent, noting the assessee ... Disallowance of employees contribution towards PF & ESI being paid delayed in terms of section 36(1)(va) - only contention of the assessee was that it had paid the employees contribution in accordance with the provisions of respective law within due date from the date of payment of salary thus, the same deserved to be allowed. HELD THAT:- Apparently, there was delay in depositing the employees contribution towards PF & ESI and thus, the same is to be disallowed as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] for which there is no quarrel on the part of the assessee also. The only request of the assessee is that delay should be counted from the actual date of payment of salary from where the liability of payment of employees contribution towards PF & ESI commenced. Accordingly, the AO is directed to verify whether the delay in deposit of employee’s contribution towards PF & ESI was from the date of actual payment of salary under the respective Act and decide the matter in accordance with law. AO is further directed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether delay in filing the appeal (338 days) should be condoned on grounds of the assessee's advanced age and prolonged illness absent documentary medical evidence. 2. Whether employer's deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act for employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) is allowable where deposit to statutory authorities was made after the due date prescribed under the respective statutes but within a period measured from the date of actual payment of salary. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal Legal framework: Admirable judicial discretion exists to condone delay in filing appeals where sufficient cause is shown; considerations include ill health, advanced age, bona fides, and overall interest of justice. Precedent Treatment: The Court accepted reliance placed on established authorities permitting liberal exercise of discretion in appropriate cases (appellant's authorities relied upon were acknowledged and considered). No precedent was overruled or distinguished; the tribunal followed the established approach of weighing personal disability and bona fides. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted a 338-day delay and that the explanation proffered hinged on the assessee's status as a senior citizen and prolonged illness, supported by an affidavit though not by independent medical records. The Tribunal found that given the assessee's advanced age, the affidavit, and the absence of any suggestion of mala fides, these circumstances amounted to sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal expressly exercised its discretion in the larger interest of justice and considered the appellant's prompt action only upon receiving demand pursuance from the Assessing Officer. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Delay condoned where advanced age and prolonged illness, even if supported primarily by affidavit and not by independent medical documentary evidence, constitute sufficient cause in the absence of mala fides and where justice requires admission. Obiter - Reliance on specific precedent authorities for liberal approach; no novel legal principle beyond established discretionary standards was laid down. Conclusions: The delay of 338 days in filing the appeal was condoned; the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Issue 2 - Allowability of Deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for Delayed Deposit of Employees' PF/ESI Contribution Legal framework: Section 36(1)(va) disallows deduction for sums payable by an employer by way of employees' contribution to provident fund, superannuation fund, gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees where such sums are not paid to the appropriate authority within the prescribed time under any law for the time being in force. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal accepted and applied the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services decision which holds that if the employer does not deposit employees' contribution to the statutory authority within the time prescribed under the relevant statute, the amount is not deductible under section 36(1)(va). That precedent was followed and treated as binding on the issue of disallowance for delayed statutory deposits. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recognized as undisputed that deposits to PF and ESI authorities were made after the statutory due dates and therefore prima facie attracted disallowance under section 36(1)(va) in line with the Supreme Court's decision. The sole contention by the assessee was that the period of delay should be reckoned from the date of actual payment of salary (i.e., that the liability to deposit employees' contribution crystallized on salary payment), which, if accepted, could affect the measurement of delay and the applicability of disallowance. The Tribunal neither accepted nor rejected that contention on the papers; instead it remitted the factual and legal determination to the Assessing Officer (AO) with specific directions: (a) to verify whether the delay in deposit was to be computed from the date of actual payment of salary under the respective statutory scheme, (b) to decide the matter in accordance with law, and (c) to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where deposit of employees' statutory contributions to PF/ESI is made after the time prescribed under the respective statutes, disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is attracted as per binding precedent. Obiter - The precise question whether the relevant timeline for computing delay may commence from the date of actual payment of salary (affecting when liability arises under respective statutory machinery) was not decided on the merits by the Tribunal; instead, the Tribunal remitted that factual-legal question to the AO for determination. Thus, guidance is procedural (remand) rather than substantive resolution of that specific interpretive point. Conclusions: The Tribunal confirmed the legal principle that late deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI ordinarily results in disallowance under section 36(1)(va) (following higher-court precedent). However, because the assessee advanced a contention about the appropriate commencement date for computation of delay (date of actual payment of salary), the Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO to verify and decide whether delay should be measured from salary payment dates, ensuring the assessee is heard before final determination. Cross-References and Procedural Directions 1. The Tribunal's decision to remit is grounded on adherence to binding precedent regarding disallowance for delayed statutory deposits while preserving the assessee's opportunity to establish a different factual matrix as to when the statutory liability crystallized (date of salary payment). 2. The AO was directed to undertake fact-specific verification, apply the legal standard set out by binding authority, and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard; the Tribunal's remit is procedural and intended to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and correct application of law. Disposition The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes: delay in filing condoned and substantive issue remitted to the AO for verification and fresh decision consistent with law and the Tribunal's directions.