2019 (8) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Y 201213. 2. The assessee has proposed the following substantial question of law for the consideration of this Court:- (i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as on law the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing the claim of the appellant amounting to Rs. 39,91,179/? 3. The issue raised as aforesaid is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Checkmate Facility And Electronic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 in the Tax Appeal No.1256 of 2018 decided on 15/10/2018. "2. The issue arises in following background. The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 201314, the assessee had filed the return of income declaring total inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contention which did not arise for consideration before this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra). He submitted that in terms of section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, reference to the time limit for depositing the contributions within 15 days of close of the month must be to the month in which the salary payment is made. For example, therefore if the salary payment for the month of June is made on 5th July, the employer would have time upto 15th of August for depositing the employee's contribution of provident fund. Looking from this angle, there was no delay or default on the part of the present assessee. 4. In terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, any sum ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt of contributions and administrative charge]: "Provided that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner may for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow any employer or class of employer to deposit the contributions by any other mode other than internet banking". 5. This provision thus requires an employer before paying the employee his wages to deduct the employee's contribution along with the employer's own contribution as fixed by the Government. It is further required that he shall within fifteen days of the close of every month pay the same to the fund such contribution and administrative charges. In terms of this provision thus, after deducting the employee's contribution towards the funds, the same has to be deposit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the two decisions of this Court (1) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra); And (2) M/s Checkmate Facility And Electronic Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra) could be termed as perincuriam, we do not find any merit in such contention. 5. In the case of Urmin Products Pvt. Limited (supra), this Court observed in Paragraphs5 and 6 are as under:- 5. With regard to the second question of disallowance of Rs. 78,790/made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, this essentially relates to Employees Contribution Fund. This was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the company made delayed payment and as under Section 36(1)(va) the Employee's Contribution received by the employer is formed to be employer's income. The sa....