TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, by relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, disregarding the judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. & Ors., which had been cited by the Appellant. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of supply of manpower to various companies in the name of proprietary concern, namely, M/s Balaji Engineers and Consultants. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 12/10/2014, declaring total income of Rs. 41,01,660/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') were issued and complied with. The scrutiny assessment was completed on 06/12/2016 under section 143(3) of the Act after making certain addition/disallowances. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief. Aggrieved with the addition sustained, the assessee is before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility and filed pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is for deduction of Rs. 50,000/- out of a total sum claimed amounting to Rs. 1,48,782/- is not clear. Mr.Sabharwal has fairly pointed out the decision in the assessee‟s case by the ITAT for the assessment year 1989- 1990 wherein, the ITAT has allowed similar expenses in totality. As a matter of fact, the ITAT has accepted the case of the assessee that for minor amounts relating to conveyance etc. and other business expenses, it is impractical to have vouchers and that internal vouchers of the staff/employees of an organization will suffice. For the said assessment year, the amount claimed towards expenses was under the similar heads, that is, cartage, labour and sealing expenses." 4.5 Further, the Tribunal the case of Ganpati Enterprises Ltd. (supra) has as under: "7. We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the relevant material available on record. As the facts emerge, AO in his order has merely referred to excessiveness of expenditure; self made vouchers and without assigning any reasons ad hoc disallowances have been made, which in A.Y. 2003-04 have been upheld by CIT(A) and in A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 have been partly confirmed. In our view, if the books of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IL Ltd. & Ors (supra). 5.3 On the other hand, the Learned DR submitted that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in their detailed decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. in ITA 271 of 2005, dated 06/09/2018 has held that employees' contribution to ESI/EPF should be allowed for deduction, if paid within the due date stipulated in respect of enactments. He submitted that in view of the detailed decision, the finding of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. (supra) should be followed. 5.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. There are two types of contribution to ESI/PF while making payment of salary/wages to employees. First contribution is by employer. Deduction of this contribution is governed by the provision of section 43B(b) of the Act on actual payment on or before the due date of the furnishing of return of income. Second contribution to ESI/PF is by the employee. This contribution has been treated as income in the hands of the employer in terms of section 2(24)(x) of the Act which reads as under: "(24) "income" includes- (x) any sum received by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aries of the employees which had to be deposited within the stipulated time (in terms of notification/circular dated 19.03.1964 which was modified on 24.10.1973), as far as the EPF contribution went and the period of three weeks as far as the ESI contributions went. The AO made a tabular analysis with respect to the contributions deducted and actually deposited. The cumulative effect of notifications under the Employees‟ Provident Funds Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 was that in respect of the EPF Scheme contributions the deductions were to be deposited within 15 days of the succeeding wage period with a grace period of 5 days; for ESI contributions the deposit with the concerned statutory authority had to be made within three weeks of the succeeding wage month/period. The CIT in this case confirmed the additions - made by the AO based on the entire amounts that were disallowed. The ITAT however granted complete relief. 8. Having regard to the specific provisions of the Employees‟ Provident Funds Act and ESI Act as well as the concerned notifications which granted a grace period of 5 days (which appears to have been late withdrawn recently on 08....