TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer of disallowance of Rs.145572 towards employees contribution to P.F. and Rs.2111 towards E.S.I.C. aggregating to Rs.147683/- u/s.43B for minor delay in depositing the contribution to respective accounts. These dues are paid by the appellant before the due date of filing of return of income and evidence for payment of dues is filed before the Assessing Officer. 2. In respect of the above issue the Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act dated 27/08/2009 has observed as follows:- "3. Employees Provident Fund and ESIC From the audit report submitted by the assessee it is observed that the Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and E.S.I.C. had been paid late after the due date by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vinay Cement Ltd. v/s. CIT (2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC) wherein it was held that "Contribution towards PF and ESIC having been paid by the assessee within 2 to 4 days after grace period provided under s.43B but before filing the return, disallowance under s.43B was rightly deleted by the Tribunal". In view of the above citation considering minor delay in deposit of dues, kindly allow the deduction." The submission of the assessee considered carefully. However on going through the same it is observed that no such decision exists and the assessee merely tried to misguide the department. Thus the assessee contravened the provisions of section 43B of the Income tax Act. Accordingly the sum of Rs.147683/- is disallowed and added back to the tot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 ITR 446 (A.P.) 5. CIT vs. M.N. Chari (2009) 310 ITR 445 (Kar.) 6. From the side of the Revenue, ld.DR Mr.Samir Tekriwal appeared and placed reliance on DCIT vs. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. reported at (2011) 139 TTJ 192 (Kol.). The Learned Departmental Representative has argued that the Respected ITAT "B" Bench Kolkata has held that the provisions of section 36(1)(va) being special provisions enacted with to deal with specific matter would prevail over the general provisions of the section 43B of the I.T.Act. 7. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and on perusal of the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that considering the dates of payment as listed hereinabove the issue now stood covered by the latest d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particularly to give effect to the section as a whole. In a recent decision dated 30/03/2010 the questions before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakhani Rubber Works 326 ITR 415 were as under: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs.13,01,730 made by the Assessing Officer on account of late deposit of the employees' contribution to PF disregarding the fact that the payments were made beyond the due dates and were, therefore, not allowable under section 36(1)(va) and were to be treated as income under section 2(24)(x) ....