2022 (4) TMI 721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... difference is in the quantum of addition. Therefore, the grounds raised in appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 are being reproduced hereunder for the sake of brevity and convenience. "1. The Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in upholding impugned addition of Rs. 3,07,475/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act for delayed deposit of employee shares of ESI/PF ignoring the fact that such payments are paid before due date of filling of return of income u/s 139(1) of IT Act and therefore are allowable under law as per decision of jurisdictional Delhi High Court. (Tax Effect: Rs. 95,010/-) 2. The Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in upholding impugned addition of Rs. 3,07,475/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act for d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lhi vide impugned orders on the premise that since the assessee did not deposit the employees' contribution to PF and ESI before the due date, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved by these orders, the assessee is in these appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR of the assessee submits that since the assessee has paid employees' contribution to PF and ESI before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the same cannot be held as disallowable deduction. Reliance is placed on a series of decisions. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR contended that once the assessee failed to deposit employees' contribution to PF & ESI before due date as prescribed in the ESI & PF Act, the order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f sum payable by employer contribution was involved, but Court did not restrict observations, findings and declaration of law to that context hut looking to the objective and purpose of insertion of Section 43B applied it to both the contributions. It also observed clearly that Section 43B is with a non-obstante clause and therefore override even if, anything otherwise is contained in Section 36 or any provision of Act 1961. 29. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that law laid down by High Courts of Karnataka, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, Delhi, Bombay and Himachal Pradesh have rightly applied Section 43B in respect to both contributions i.e. employer and employee. ... 30. In view of above all the questions formulated a....