2018 (2) TMI 1636

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eting the addition of Rs. 13,62,84,653/- made by the A.O. for depositing the employee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided in respective Acts. (ii) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that employee's contribution to PF & ESI are governed by the provision of Section 43B and not by Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act. (iii) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,02,715/- made on account of disallowance of consultancy charges by considering the additional evidence without providing opportunity to the A.O. as per Rule 46-A." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e on one hand and contribution to employees' welfare funds on the other, are curative in nature, and thus, effective retrospectively w.e.f. 1-4-88 i.e. the date of insertion of first proviso. It was further held that where Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Contribution were paid by the assessee before filing of the return and proof of payment was submitted before the Assessing Officer, the amounts were deductible as deduction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd & Ors. reported in 321 ITR 508 held as under:- "As soon as employees' contribution towards PF or ESI is received by the assessee by way of deduction or otherwise from the salary/ wages of the employees, it will be treated as 'in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (del) 258 followed." Apart from the above decisions, the following decisions are also applicable on the issue at hand:- i. Dy CIT vs. Orbit Resorts (P) Ltd (48 SOT 23 (URO) ii. ACIT vs. Ranabaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 7 ITR (Trib) 161 (DLH) iii. ACIT vs. M/s. Anil Special Steel Industries Ltd. (decision of Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 1100/JP/2011) From the above decisions, it is clear that payment or contribution made to the provident fund authority any time before filing of the return for the year in which the liability to pay accrued is an allowable expenditure. Likewise, in the present case, the employees' contribution was deposited by the appellant before due date for filing of return of incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Employees State Insurance Contribution were paid by the assessee before filing of the return and proof of payment was submitted before the Assessing Officer, the amounts were deductible as deduction. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Aimil Ltd. & ors. (supra) deleted the addition. IN view of the above facts and circumstances, the Bench find no any contrary material in the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the same. Accordingly, both the grounds of the revenue's appeal stand dismissed. 5. In the ground No. (iii) of the appeal, the issue involved is deleting the addition of Rs. 22,02,715 made on ac....