TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PC Bangalore made an addition of Rs. 1,65,708/- by disallowing the amount received from the employees as contribution to the PF/Superannuation Fund/fund set up under ESI Act, since the same amount was not credited to employees accounts on or before the due date specified under relevant acts as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act and also made a disallowance of expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,794/- incurred on account of penalty. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed the gross total income of Rs. 21,22,890 and raised a demand of Rs. 67,200/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer with regard to addition of Rs. 1,65,708/- and directed the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions made before the authorities below while the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Elico Ltd vs. ACIT in I.T.A. No. 1120/HYD/2016, dated 18.11.2020 (to which the JM is a signatory), has decided the issue as under: 3. Ground No.2 is related to sustaining of addition made by the AO of Rs. 41,18,429/- and Rs. 3,80,215/- being the amount of PF and ESI respectively by applying the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act [Act]. 3.1. In the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has remitted the sum of Rs. 41,18,429/- employees contribution towards PF ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., both the PF and ESI are required to be allowed as deductions, if the same are remitted to the respective accounts before the due dates, specified in the respective act. Since the assessee failed to remit the same before the due date of the respective accounts, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the AO made the addition and the Ld.CIT(A) rightly sustained, hence, no interference is called-for in the order of Ld.CIT(A), hence argued that the appeal of the assessee deserved to be dismissed. 3.5. We have heard both the parties through video conference and gone through the material placed on record. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the amounts-in-question with regard to EPF and ESI were remitted to the conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Rajastan Beverages Corporation Ltd., (2017) [84 taxmann.com 173] held that no disallowance can be made in respect of PF and ESI u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, if the same are deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income. For the sake clarity and convenience we extract relevant part of the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High as under: "5. So far as the question relating to privilege fees amounting to Rs. 26.00 Crores in the instant year as well as the deduction of claim of Rs. 17,80,765/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) and ESI is concerned, this Court has extensively considered the aforesaid two questions in assessee's own case vide judgmen....