2022 (7) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....qua the assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter alia that:- "1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in adding Rs. 6,68,547/- on account of alleged delay in payment towards Provident Fund, ESIC and any Other Welfare Fund u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B and 2(24)(x) of the Act thereby a) Disregarding the case laws of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court etc. b) By overlooking the fact that even though the same is paid on or before due date of filing of return. c) By disregarding the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 and Hind Filter Ltd. 90 taxmann.com 51 (Bombay) and Atom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3,75,51,680/-, which was revised on 28.05.2018 & 15.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,75,51,680/- & Rs. 3,85,27,980/- respectively which was subjected to scrutiny. Assessing Officer (AO) noticed from form 3CD furnished by the assessee that some payment to the tune of Rs. 6,68,547/- on account of Provident Fund PF & ESIC were made late by the assessee. 3. Declining the contention raised by the assessee that the payments have been made well before the date of filing the return, AO proceeded to disallow the late payment of Rs. 6,68,547/- made by the assessee on account of PF & ESIC under section 2(24)(X) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 4. Assessee carried the matter before the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02.2017 ESIC 5857 21.02.2017 04.04.2017 ESIC   5857 21.03.2017 26.04.2017 TOTAL   6,68,547     7. Perusal of the aforesaid table shows that contributions made by employees on account of PF & ESIC were deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the Act. But at the same time it is admitted fact on record that the said payment has been deposited well before the date of filing the return of income by the asses see company. 8. Identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT V. Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. 368 ITR 749 by confirming the order passed by the Tribunal that deduction claimed by the asses see on account of employees contributi....