2021 (7) TMI 1326 - AT - Income Tax

Employee s contribution to PF and employees contribution to ESI on account of delay in deposit as per concerned statutes - HELD THAT - As relying on PRO INTERACTIVE SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2018 (9) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT in view of the judgement of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Aimil Limited 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT the issue is covered against the Revenue and therefore no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Addition of employee's contribution to PF and ESI due to delay in deposit
- Application of judicial precedents
- Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x)
- Interest under section 244A
- Liability towards interest charged u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C

Analysis:
1. Addition of employee's contribution to PF and ESI due to delay in deposit:
- The appeal challenged the addition of ?17,34,620 on account of delay in depositing employee's contribution to PF and ESI. The CPC disallowed the claim due to the delay. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
- The assessee argued that the authorities were unjustified in disallowing the claim, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a similar case, and concluded in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim and delete the addition.

2. Application of judicial precedents:
- The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding judicial precedents relied upon and confirming the addition based on other judgments. The Tribunal reviewed the relevant case laws presented by both parties and found in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of following precedents in such matters.

3. Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x):
- The issue of disallowance under this section was raised concerning the delayed deposit of employee contributions. The Tribunal, after considering the legislative intent and relevant judgments, ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the legislative intent was not to treat belated payments as deemed income of the employer.

4. Interest under section 244A:
- The appellant sought interest under section 244A related to refunds as claimed in the return of income. The Tribunal's decision did not specifically address this issue in the provided summary.

5. Liability towards interest charged u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C:
- The appellant denied liability towards interest charged under these sections and requested appropriate relief. However, the summary does not indicate a detailed discussion or decision on this specific issue in the judgment provided.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, primarily focusing on the addition of employee contributions to PF and ESI due to delay in deposit. The judgment highlighted the importance of following judicial precedents and interpreting relevant sections of the Income Tax Act to determine the treatment of such contributions. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, legal provisions, and applicable case laws.