TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome for AY 2019-20 declaring total income of Rs. 29,41,91,900/-. In an intimation dated 29.07.2020, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) made addition of a sum of Rs. 3,23,827/- as income representing employees share of contribution to Provident Fund (PF) & Employees State Insurance (ESI) to the extent not paid on or before the due date as mentioned in Sec 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. It is the case of the assessee that in so far as contribution, the same has been paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act and hence has been considered allowable on the basis of decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and other cases such as CIT Vs Magus Customers Dialog (P) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said clause. The CIT(A) also held that Section 43B of the Income-tax Act relates to allowing certain deductions only on actual payments. Clause (b) of the said section provides that any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees shall be allowed (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the assessee according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) only in computing the income referred to in section 28 of that previous year, in which such sum is actually paid by him. Proviso to the said section provides that nothing contained in this section shal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme will result in negating employer's claim for deduction permanently forever u/s.36(1)(va). On the other hand, delay in payment of employer's contribution is visited with deferment of deduction on payment basis u/s.43B and is therefore not lost totally. This legal distinction between employees' contribution and employer's contribution under the Act was duly recognised by the Courts also. The CIT(A) in this regard referred to the following judicial pronouncement wherein the aforesaid distinction has been accepted viz., CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170/223 Taxman 398 (Guj.), CIT v. Merchant Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 119/235 Taxman 291/378 ITR 443 (Ker.). 6. The CIT(A), there....