Late deposit of employees' PF/ESIC contributions beyond statutory due dates held non-deductible u/s36(1)(va) despite return filing payment

Delayed remittance of employees' PF/ESIC contributions beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare statutes raised the issue whether such sums, though paid before the due date for filing the return, are deductible under s. 36(1)(va) r/w s. 43B. Applying SC's authoritative ruling in Checkmate Services, the ITAT held that employees' contributions are governed by s. 36(1)(va) and must be deposited within the statutory due dates; payments made thereafter constitute an incorrect claim and are not allowable deductions notwithstanding payment before return-filing due date. The disallowance was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether employees' contribution to Provident Fund and Employees' State Insurance, deposited by the employer after the due dates prescribed under the respective welfare enactments but before the due date for filing the return of income, is allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B.

1.2 Whether, in view of the law declared in relation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B, the disallowance of delayed employees' contribution to PF/ESI while processing the return under section 143(1) constitutes a valid prima facie adjustment, or the issue is "debatable" and therefore outside the scope of section 143(1).

1.3 Whether the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and corresponding amendment to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 has any bearing on the allowability of such deductions for the year under consideration, including any claim of prospective versus retrospective operation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Allowability of deduction for employees' contributions to PF/ESI deposited after statutory due date but before return filing due date

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal examined sections 36(1)(va), 43B and 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT. The judgment of the Supreme Court, including its detailed reasoning (paras 51-55), was expressly reproduced and relied upon. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 inserting Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B were noted as having been relied upon by the first appellate authority.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Tribunal recorded that it is undisputed that the assessee deposited employees' contribution to PF and ESI after the "due date" prescribed under the respective Acts, though before the due date for filing the return of income.

2.3 Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal accepted and applied the following legal position:

(a) A clear distinction exists between (i) employer's contribution governed by section 36(1)(iv), and (ii) employees' contribution governed by section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x); the latter is treated as the employer's "deemed income" until deposited within the due date under the relevant welfare law.

(b) Section 43B and its non obstante clause cannot override or dilute the specific condition under section 36(1)(va) that employees' contributions must be deposited "on or before the due date" under the respective welfare enactments for them to qualify as deductible; the leeway of payment up to the return-filing date under section 43B does not extend to employees' contributions.

(c) Amounts representing employees' contributions are held in trust by the employer and are not in the nature of ordinary business liability of the employer; therefore, timely deposit within the statutory due date under the respective enactments is an essential pre-condition for deduction.

2.4 On this basis, the Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that payment made before the due date of filing the return is sufficient for allowability of deduction in respect of employees' contribution is contrary to the statutory scheme as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

2.5 The Tribunal further held that, once the Supreme Court has conclusively settled the issue in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the contrary High Court and Tribunal decisions cited by the assessee are no longer applicable or good law.

Conclusions on Issue 1

2.6 Employees' contributions to PF/ESI deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant welfare Acts are not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va), even if they are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income.

2.7 The assessee's claim in the return, being in violation of the statutory requirement regarding timely deposit of employees' contributions, was an incorrect claim and was rightly disallowed.

Issue 2: Validity of disallowance under section 143(1) and the claim that the matter is "debatable"

Interpretation and reasoning

2.8 The assessee contended that disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI while processing the return under section 143(1) is beyond the scope of prima facie adjustment, asserting that the issue is debatable and that a view in favour of the assessee should prevail.

2.9 The Tribunal, after applying the law laid down in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that the legal position regarding allowability of delayed employees' contributions stands conclusively settled and operates as the law of the land from the inception of the relevant provisions.

2.10 On this premise, the Tribunal rejected the plea that the issue is debatable. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had "apparently made incorrect claim in its return of income" contrary to the statutory requirement and to the law declared by the Supreme Court.

2.11 By holding that the claim was incorrect on a settled point of law and that the assessee had not complied with the "condition precedent" of deposit on or before the due date under the relevant Acts, the Tribunal implicitly accepted that disallowance of such an incorrect claim in processing was justified and that the characterisation of the issue as "debatable" is misconceived.

Conclusions on Issue 2

2.12 In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the issue of allowability of delayed employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not a debatable issue, and the assessee's contrary claim is an incorrect claim in law.

2.13 The disallowance of such contribution as made and confirmed, including at the stage of processing and appellate review, is valid and sustainable.

Issue 3: Effect of Finance Act, 2021 amendments (Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and related Explanation to section 43B)

Interpretation and reasoning

2.14 The assessee argued that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va), inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 and stated to apply from assessment year 2021-22 onwards, could not be given retrospective effect and that the prevailing pre-amendment position, allegedly permitting deduction up to the due date of filing return, should govern the year in question.

2.15 The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority had relied on the amended provisions (Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B) in disallowing the claim.

2.16 The Tribunal, however, based its ultimate decision on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., observing that the law as declared therein is the law of the land "from the date of inception of the Act". On that basis, the Tribunal treated the Supreme Court's exposition of the original provisions themselves as determinative of the legal position, irrespective of the Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

2.17 By holding that the statutory scheme, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, always required deposit of employees' contributions on or before the due dates under the respective Acts, the Tribunal effectively rejected the argument that a different, more beneficial, legal position existed prior to assessment year 2021-22.

Conclusions on Issue 3

2.18 The allowability of deduction for employees' contributions to PF/ESI for the year under consideration is governed by the original provisions of sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and 43B as judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court, and not by any asserted beneficial pre-amendment position.

2.19 The Finance Act, 2021 amendments do not aid the assessee; the disallowance is sustainable even on the basis of the unamended law as clarified by the Supreme Court.

Overall Disposition

2.20 The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI deposited beyond the statutory due dates, affirmed the order of the first appellate authority, and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

---