1996 (12) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of employer's and employees' contributions to provident fund and employees' State insurance fund when paid after the due dates.
3. Alleged discrimination and double jeopardy under the said provisions.

Summary:

Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va)
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that these provisions, which disallow deductions for employer's and employees' contributions to provident fund and employees' State insurance fund when paid after the due dates, are unconstitutional. The court held that these provisions are not violative of articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that these provisions aim to ensure compliance with welfare legislations and do not impose any penalty or damages but merely disallow deductions for non-compliance.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Contributions Paid After Due Dates
The petitioners contended that contributions paid, though not within the due dates, should be allowed as permissible deductions based on the accrual method of accounting u/s 145 of the Income-tax Act. The court clarified that section 43B mandates that deductions for contributions to provident fund or any other welfare fund are allowable only if actually paid within the due dates as defined in the Explanation to section 36(1)(va). The court upheld the provisions, stating that they ensure prompt payment and compliance with beneficial legislations for employees.

Issue 3: Alleged Discrimination and Double Jeopardy
The petitioners argued that the provisos (1) and (2) to section 43B are discriminatory and result in double jeopardy. The court found no merit in these contentions, explaining that the classification between sums referred to in clause (b) and those in clauses (a), (c), and (d) of section 43B is reasonable and has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The court noted that the provisions aim to prevent employers from unauthorizedly retaining employees' contributions and ensure compliance with welfare legislations. The court also dismissed the argument of double jeopardy, stating that the provisions deal with different aspects and benefits under different laws.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned provisions, viz., the Explanation to clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 and provisos (1) and (2) to section 43B, are not violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.