2025 (7) TMI 1795 - AT - Income Tax

Employees' PF and ESI Deposits After Due Date but Before Filing Return Require Factual Determination Under Tax Rules

Rajesh Kumar Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Gurgaon

The ITAT Delhi held that employees' contributions to PF and ESI were deposited after the prescribed due dates but before filing the income tax return. ... Disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI) - reckoning of due date for deposit of employees contribution - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESI were deposited by the assessee to the Government account beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective acts but well before the date of filing the return of income. We find that the recent decision of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] had settled the entire dispute to rest by deciding it in favour of the revenue. AR submitted that the deposit of employees’ contribution should be reckoned from the month in which the salary has been actually disbursed rather than the month for which the salary relates - In our considered opinion, this matter requires factual verification by the Learned AO. Hence we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair play to remit this matter to the file of AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law having regard to the observations made by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Sentinel Consultants P. Ltd. [2023 (6) TMI 1419 - ITAT DELHI] ISSUES: Whether the addition made on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI) is justified where such contributions were deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective acts but before the filing of the return of income.Whether the due date for deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI should be reckoned from the month in which the salary is actually disbursed rather than the month for which the salary relates. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: Regarding the timing of deposit of employees' contribution, the Court upheld the principle that employee contributions deducted from salary are 'others' income, monies, only deemed to be income,' and that the 'essential condition for the deduction' under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is that such amounts must be 'deposited on or before the due date' prescribed by the relevant welfare enactments; deposits made after the due date but before filing the return do not qualify for deduction.The Court recognized the contention that the due date for deposit should be computed from the actual salary disbursement month rather than the salary month, and accordingly remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and de novo adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's decision and relevant Tribunal observations. RATIONALE: The Court applied the legal framework established by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT, which distinguished between the employer's primary liability (Section 36(1)(iv)) and the employer's liability to deposit employees' contributions deducted from salary (Section 36(1)(va)), emphasizing that the latter are 'deemed income' held in trust and must be deposited by the due date to qualify for deduction.The Court interpreted the non-obstante clause in Section 43B as not overriding the statutory obligation to deposit employees' contributions within the due date, as the provision aims to ensure 'timely payment before the returns are filed' of statutory liabilities, but does not extend this leniency to employee contributions held in trust.The remand for factual determination on the reckoning of due dates reflects a procedural approach to ensure 'interest of justice and fair play,' referencing the Tribunal's prior observations and consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.