TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even when the same were paid before the due date of filling the return of income. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above referred ground of appeal." 3. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee was engaged in the business of Staffing and Manpower supply, who filed its original return of income on 31.10.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 25,65,467/- under normal provisions and Rs. 21,97,669/- under MAT provision i.e. u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The return was processed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well as the concerned notifications which granted a grace period of 5 days (which appears to have been late withdrawn recently on 08.01.2016), we are of the opinion that the ITAT_s decision in this case was not correct. The assessee undoubtedly was entitled to claim the benefit and properly treat such amounts as having been duly deposited, which were in fact deposited within the period prescribed (i.e. 15 + 5 days in the case of EPF and 21 days + any other grace period in terms of the extent notification). As far as the amounts constituting deductions from employees_ salaries towards their contributions, which were made beyond such stipulated period, obviously the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction from its returns." 9. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 25,65,467/- under normal provisions and Rs. 21,97,669/- under MAT [(iii) disallowance of loss claimed. if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-lAB, 80-lB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (I) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SIC. The appellant claimed a deduction of Rs. 26,95,005/-, being employees contribution under the ESIC Act, out of which Rs. 21,96,923/- were paid into Employees State Insurance fund beyond the due dates as prescribed under the said statute but before the due date of filing of the income tax return. The assessing officer while issuing an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act made a disallowance of Rs. 21,96,923/-, as the same were deposited to respective fund by the appellant beyond the due dates as prescribed under the said statute. 5.1.3 During appeal proceedings, the appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that contributions to ESIC were made before the due date of filing of original return of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome Tax Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 is reproduced below: "Certain deductions to be only on actual payment. 43B. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of-- (b) 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, [ or] "Explanation 5.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cally mentioned in the ground of appeal nos 2. 5.2.2 In view of detailed reasons given in Ground No.2 above, Ground No.1 is dismissed. 5.3.1 In Ground No.3, the appellant has contended that the appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal. 5.3.2 Since the appellant did not add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal, Ground No.3 is dismissed." 10. I find merit in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of AIMIL Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held:- 17. "We may only add that if the employees' contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under....