2017 (12) TMI 936

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me tax returns u/s 139(1) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO noticed that the employees' contribution to PF of Rs. 43,01,134 and ESI ofRs.45,000 was paid beyond the prescribed due date but the assessee has not added back the same to the total income in itscomputation of income. The assessee's explanation as to why disallowance should not be made was called for. Assessee relied upon various case law in support of his claim that if it is paid before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, it should be allowed. The AO was not convinced with the contention of the assessee. He observed that there are different due dates for paying ESIC and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... isnot paid within the prescribed due date. She also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs.Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 57(I) I TCL 72(Guj. High Court). Therefore, she confirmed the disallowance and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted thatboth the employees and employer's contribution is to be remitted to the Govt. A/c within the prescribed date or before the due date for filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. He submitted that theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions has held that both the employer's as well as employees contribution which is paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 13....