TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal of the revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of employees' contribution to ESI & PF by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. For this revenue has raised the following two grounds: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 36(1)(va) read with sec. 2(24)(x) of the I. T. Act, 1961 on account of the employee's contribution to ESI amounting to Rs.14,62,739/- and employee's contribution to P.F. amounting to Rs.59,25,188/- due to non-deposit of the contributions within the due date to the appropriate authority. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions by wrongly invoking the provisions of section 43B sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch decision should be followed. 5. We have heard Ld. Sr. DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find from the order of CIT(A) that PF and ESI payments on account of Employees' contribution were paid within the due dates of filing of return of relevant assessment year and further even the payments made within the grace period provided under respective Acts i.e. The Employee's Provident Fund Act" & "The Employees State Insurance Act". We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, as the payments of these contributionare made within the due date of filling of return of income as noted by CIT(A) in his appellate order, by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. P.M. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay Cement (supra) a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. In the passing we may also note that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nexus Computer (P) Ltd. by a judgment dt. 19th Aug., 2008, passed in Tax Case (Appeal) No.1192/2008 [reported at (2008) 219 CTR (Mad.) 54 - Ed.] discussed the impact of both the dismissal of the special leave petition in the case of George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (supra) and Vinay Cement (supra) as well as a contrary view of the Division Bench of its own Court in Synergy Financial Exchange (supra). The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has explained the effect of the dismissal of a special leave petition by a speaking order by relying upon the judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 12. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning of the Madras High Court in Nexus Computer (P) Ltd. (supra). Judicial discipline requires us to follow the view of the Supreme Court in Vinay Cement (supra) as also the view of the Division Bench of this Court in Dharmendra Sharma (supra). 13. In these circumstances, we respectfully disagree with the approach adopted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (supra). 14. In these circumstances indicated above, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is, thus, dismissed." 6. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of P.M. Electronics L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statutory benefit of deduction of payment of tax from the Revenue. If thatprovision is read along with the first proviso of the said section which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, which came into effect from April 1, 1988, the letters numbered as clause (a), or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Incometax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in this case at the time of submitting returns of income under section 139 of the Act to the Revenue in respect of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bill with all fours supports the case of the assessee/ respondents. Therefore, we have to answer the substantial question of law No. 1 framed by this court in these appeals at the instance of the Revenue against them, viz., in the negative. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question No. 1 framed in these appeals in the negative." Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) has clearly discussed the provisions of section 36(1)(va) and held as under: "In view of the second proviso, which stood on the statute book at the relevant time, each of such assessee(s) would not be entitled to deduction under section 43B of the Act for all times. They would lose the benefit of deduction even in the year of account i....