TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee that such amount has been deposited before the due date of filing of the return, the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions held that the above amounts totalling to Rs.39,77,542/- is forming part of the income of the assessee u/s.2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act. He, therefore, added the same to the total income of the assessee. 2.1 In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following his decision in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006-07 as well as the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ghatge Patil Transporters vide ITA Nos.340 and 341/PN/2010 for A.Yrs 2003-04 and 2004-05 deleted the addition holding that even employees' contribution paid within due date of filing of return of income is allowable. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us with the following grounds: "1. Whether the decision of CIT(A) ignoring the provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) as per which employee's contribution to ESI, PF and Pension Fund is deductible only if payment is made before the due date as prescribed in the respective Act, Rule, Order or Notification governing such funds is erroneous and contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in 100 DTR 134 (Kar.) and in the case of CIT Vs. Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 100 DTR 129 (Kar.) Further, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur reported in 360 ITR 70 (Raj.) has also taken similar view. He accordingly submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed. 6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. The only issue to be decided in the grounds of appeal is as to whether the employees' contribution towards PF and ESI paid after the statutory due dates but deposited before the due date of filing of the return prescribed u/s.139(1) is an allowable expenditure or not. We find the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (Supra) has decided an identical issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under : "We find no merit in the aforestated contention. Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was inserted in the Act with effect from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....izance of the difficulties, inserted an amendment, vide the Finance Act, 2003, which came into force with effect from April 1, 2004. In other words, with effect from April 1, 2004, two changes were made in section 43B, viz., deletion of the second proviso to section 43B and further amendment in the first proviso, which reads as under : "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for burnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return." Therefore, the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2003, put on par the benefit of deductions of tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand with contributions to various employee's welfare funds on the other. The section referred to above, viz., section 43B and the amendments thereto came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in [2009] 319 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nditure and, hence, allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. We are of the view that the aforesaid finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be in any way said to be vitiated on the ground of perversity or any error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, does not give rise to any substantial question of law which needs to be answered by this court. In view thereof, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs". 6.1 Similarly, the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2006- 07 vide ITA No.1272/PN/2012 order dated 27-09-2013 has decided an identical issue in favour of the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under : "6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the factual matrix that the controversy in the present appeal is covered by the earlier decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. (supra), which has been followed by the CIT(A). In the said precedent, the Tribunal held that even employee's contributions towards PF and ESI which are paid within due date of filing of return of income is allo....