TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Audit Report field along with the return of income the AO observed that the assessee has made employees contribution payment in respect of PF and ESIC beyond the due date as under: P.F. Month Amount (Rs.) Due date for payment Date of payment April, 2006 64,254 20.05.2006 24.06.2006 May, 2006 72,307 20.06.2006 26.06.2006 June, 2006 79,524 20.07.2006 27.07.2006 August, 2006 1,08,162 20.09.2006 01.10.2006 Septmber,2006 1,38,489 20.10.2006 31.10.2006 October, 2006 1,41,079 20.11.2006 13.12.2006 6,03,816/- ESIC Month Amount (Rs.) Due date for payment Date of payment April, 2006 354 21.05.2006 20.12.2006 May, 2006 398 21.06.2006 20.12.2006 June, 2006 491 21.07.2006 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....slation, the assessee shall be entitled to a deduction. The Court also noticed that the second Proviso to s. 43B (b) provided that any sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund etc. shall be allowed as a deduction only if paid on or before the due date specified in 36(1)(va). After the omission of the second Proviso w.e.f 1.4.2004, the deduction is allowable under the first Proviso if the payment is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income. The Court also took note of the fact that in Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC), the deletion of the second Proviso has been held to be with retrospective effect. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had to consider whether the benefit of s. 43B ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income-tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down in Vinay Cement. In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the deduction claimed by the Assessee has to be allowed. We direct accordingly. Ground No.1 is accordingly allowed. 5. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as follows: "2. The learned CIT(A) ought not have confirmed the addition of Rs.45,794/- as professional fees, since the details were already submitted before learned ITO and fees is already accounted for."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he receipts. Before the AC the appellant has submitted that he has not received any fees from this party. Before me the appellant submitted that it was received and amount reflected :s Rs.40,200/- i.e. Rs.45,794/- less service tax of Rs.5,594/. but no evidence to reconcile this figure was submitted. Since the onus is on the assessee to prove with evidence before the AC for claiming any deduction and receipt in the P & L A/c. In this case, the appellant has failed to prove that the receipt of Rs.45,794 was reflected , therefore, the disallowance made by the AC is confirmed and ground of appeal is dismissed." 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assesse has raised ground No.2 before the Tribunal. 10. We are of the view that the issue....