Employees' EPF and ESI contributions deductible when paid before return due date u/s 139(1), despite statutory delays

ITAT held that employees' contributions to EPF and ESI are allowable as deduction if deposited before the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, even if paid after the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare statutes. Noting conflicting non-jurisdictional HC views and absence of a binding jurisdictional HC ruling, ITAT applied the SC principle that where two reasonable interpretations exist, the one favourable to the assessee must prevail. Following the Karnataka HC in Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd., the disallowance was deleted and the assessee's appeals were allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Allowability of deduction for employees' contribution to EPF and ESI deposited after the due dates under the respective welfare laws but before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act.

1.2 Interplay between sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B in determining deductibility of employees' contribution to EPF/ESI.

1.3 Choice of precedent where there exist conflicting non-jurisdictional High Court decisions on deductibility of delayed employees' contribution to EPF/ESI.

---

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Allowability of deduction for employees' EPF/ESI contribution paid after due date under EPF/ESI laws but before due date of return; Interplay of sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal)

2.1 The Tribunal considered the scheme of sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income-tax Act, in light of the judicial decisions interpreting these provisions:

- Section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) dealing with employees' contribution to welfare funds and its deductibility when paid within "due dates" under the respective Acts.

- Section 43B dealing with allowability of deduction on actual payment basis up to the due date for filing return under section 139(1), as interpreted in the context of contributions to labour welfare funds.

2.2 The Tribunal discussed a series of High Court decisions which have taken divergent views on whether employees' contribution is also governed by section 43B if paid before the due date of filing the return, including:

- In favour of allowability under section 43B for employees' contribution if paid before due date of return: Essae Teraoka (Karnataka), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (Rajasthan), Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. (Uttarakhand), Vijaya Shree Ltd. (Calcutta), Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (Bombay), AIMIL Ltd. (Delhi), and Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (Patna).

- Against such allowability: Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (Gujarat).

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court in Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. held that the term "contribution" in the EPF and ESI context includes both employer's and employees' contributions, and that no disallowance is to be made under section 43B if the payment is made within the time allowed under section 43B.

2.4 The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Rajasthan and Uttarakhand High Courts (State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur; Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.; Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.; Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd.) which held that section 43B overrides section 36(1)(va), and that employees' contribution is also allowable as deduction if paid before the due date for filing the return under section 139(1).

2.5 The Tribunal acknowledged the contrary view of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation that section 43B does not apply to employees' contribution and that such contribution is disallowable if not paid within the due date prescribed under the EPF/ESI Acts.

2.6 The Tribunal considered in detail the reasoning adopted by the Patna High Court in Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd., which, after examining the Supreme Court's decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd., and High Court decisions in Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (Bombay) and Hemla Embroidery Mills (Punjab & Haryana), concluded:

- The Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions dealt with the history and amendments to section 43B and its provisos in the context of difficulties in complying with due dates under EPF law, and treated "contribution" to labour welfare funds without distinguishing between employees' and employer's contributions.

- From that decision, both employees' and employer's contributions face identical implementation difficulties and should be placed on the same footing.

- High Courts in Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. and Hemla Embroidery Mills, after considering Alom Extrusions, held that both employees' and employer's contributions are covered by the amended section 43B and the benefit of deduction is available if paid before the due date of filing the return.

- Although a technical reading of section 43B vis-à-vis section 2(24)(x) and section 36(1)(va) could suggest different heads of deduction, a broader reading of the amendments and legislative intent justifies treating both types of contributions in the same manner.

2.7 The Tribunal expressed agreement with the reasoning of the Bombay and Punjab & Haryana High Courts (as endorsed by the Patna High Court) that, post the amendments to section 43B and in light of Alom Extrusions, employees' and employer's contributions are to be treated alike for purposes of deduction where payment is made prior to the due date for filing the return under section 139(1).

Conclusions

2.8 The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI is allowable as deduction if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1), notwithstanding delay beyond the due dates prescribed under the EPF/ESI Acts.

2.9 As it was undisputed that the assessee had deposited the relevant employees' PF/ESI contributions before the due date of filing the return for the concerned assessment years, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the disallowances of the employees' PF/ESI contributions.

---

Issue 3: Choice of precedent in the presence of conflicting non-jurisdictional High Court decisions

Interpretation and reasoning

3.1 The Tribunal noted that there exist conflicting decisions of different High Courts on the issue of deductibility of delayed employees' contribution to PF/ESI, and that none of these decisions emanates from the jurisdictional High Court.

3.2 The Tribunal referred to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd., that where two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, the one favourable to the assessee should be adopted.

3.3 Applying this principle, and in the absence of jurisdictional High Court authority, the Tribunal preferred to follow the line of decisions favourable to the assessee (Essae Teraoka and other High Courts holding that employees' contributions are allowable if paid before the section 139(1) due date) over the contrary view of the Gujarat High Court.

Conclusions

3.4 In view of the conflicting non-jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal adopted the interpretation favourable to the assessee, holding that employees' PF/ESI contributions paid before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) are deductible, and consequently allowed the assessee's appeals in full.

---