TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Rs. 11,596/- being EPF & ESI for the assessment year 2012-2013, respectively, deposited belatedly as per the due date as provided in the E.P.F. Act but before the due date of filing of the return u/s.139(1) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO observed that the assessee has not deposited the employee share of EPF & ESI within the due dates prescribed in the said Act. Therefore, he disallowed the deduction for Rs. 5,80,975/- & Rs. 44,878/- being EPF & ESI for the assessment year 2011-2012 Rs. 3,85,717/- & Rs. 11,596/- being EPF & ESI for the assessment year 2012-2013, respectively u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) following the decisions in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tribution u/s.43B of the Act To same effect is the decision of Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of CIT vs.Kichha Sugar Company Ltd . (2013) 356 ITR 351 (Uttarakhand-HC) order dated 20.5.2013. To the same effect is also the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj). The contrary view is that of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj) order dated 26.12.2013, wherein, it was held that 43B does not apply to employees contribution and only section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is applicable. Therefore, employee's contribution is disallowed if not paid within the due ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment was dismissed as also that of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in upholding the addition of Rs.8,32,507/- made under Section 2 (24)(x) read with Section 36(l)(va) of the Income-tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provision for gratuity was not made towards approved gratuity fund and that the gratuity has not become payable during the financial year and that the provision has not been made on actuarial valuation basis?" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [20091 319 ITR 306/185 Taxman 416. following which the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 749/228 Taxman 340/53 taxmaim.com 141 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Hernia Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. [20141 366 ITR 167/217 Taxman 207/37 taxmann.com 160 (Puni. & Har.) have held that both the employees' and employer's contributions are covered under the amendment to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act and the Alom Extrusions judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore the Tribunal was right in holding that the payments thereof were subject to benefits of Section 43B of the Act. 12. Learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot to labour welfare funds. The second proviso was then inserted to allow deduction of contribution to, inter alia, any provident fund if made before the due date as per the Employees Provident Fund Act during the previous year. This again resulted in implementation problems as a result of which the second proviso was deleted and the first proviso was amended bringing about uniformity by equating tax, duty and fee with contribution to labour welfare funds. It was made clear that the benefit of deduction would be applicable, provided the payments are made before the due date for filing of the return. 14. From a perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is evident that it does not specifically refer to the employees' contribution or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent head of deduction, as the head of deduction is separate under Section 43 B and Section 36 of the Act but on a broader reading of the amendments made to Section 43B repeatedly and the intention of Parliament, there appears to be sufficient justification for taking the view that the employees' and the employer's contribution ought to be treated in the same manner. In Alom Extrusions case (supra), as pointed out earlier, the Supreme Court has not made any distinction between the two as similar problem of implementation would arise in both the cases, although specific issue was not raised therein; but both the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the above referred cases after considering Alom Extrusions' ....