TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO on account of belated remittance of employees contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 2,07,51,824/-.. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a public sector undertaking and it had filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 51,25,82,098/- . The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). The case was taken up for scrutiny and the scrutiny assessment was completed on 15.09.2008 determining total loss at Rs. 36,66,53,460/-. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee company had received a sum of Rs. 2,26,00,124/- from employees towards contribution to provident fund, but paid into their respective government accounts after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the due date of filing return of income and requested to delete the addition. The Ld.CIT(A) has considered the submissions made by the Ld.AR. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 43 Taxmann 33 in which the Hon'ble High Court took the view that the word contribution occurring in section 43B of the Act would include employees contribution to PF, in the light of the definition of the word 'contribution' by sec.2(c) of P.F.Act, as per which contribution would mean both the employers contribution and employees contribution. The Ld.CIT(A) also relied on the following decisions and held that PF contribution paid after the due date under the respective Act but before filing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Rs. 2,07,51,824/- made by the A.O towards belated remittance of employees' contribution to PF u/s.36(1)(va) rw.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition made by AO, on account of belated remittance of employee's contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 2,07,51,824. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have considered that the provisions of Sec43B and decision of Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd., (319 ITR306) are attracted only in case of employer's contribution to PF and not to employees contribution to PF as clarified by CBDT vide Circular No.22/2015 dated 17th December 20 15. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the provision of section 36(l)(va) is app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) [2014] (Gujarat) reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170, 41 taxmann.com 100. 8. On the other hand, Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee made the payment before filing of the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') and also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, reported in 366 ITR 408, wherein, it was held that if the payments were made before filing of the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1), the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ployees' contribution to PF cannot be disallowed. Similar view was upheld by the Chennai bench of the ITAT, in the case of ACIT Vs. Farida Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 46 CCH 29. The coordinate bench held that if assessee had not deposited employees' contribution towards provident fund up to the due date as prescribed under relevant statute, but before due date of filing of return no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 35 Taxman 616, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 & CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. held that the deductions should be allowed fo....