2018 (5) TMI 1488 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF & ESI u/s 36(1)(va) - Held that - no disallowance can be made towards PF/ESI contributions made by the assessee within the FY or before filing of the return - here the assessee has remitted the employees contribution to PF & ESI before the filing of the return u/s 139(1) - thus the assessee was entitled to deductions under sections 43B and 36(1)(va) - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in gross receipts as per profit and loss account and 26AS statement.
- Belated remittance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI.
- Pr. CIT's order u/s 263 considering the belated payments as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
- Assessee's appeal against the order of CIT.

Analysis:
1. Discrepancy in Gross Receipts:
The assessee, engaged in manpower supply services, filed its return showing gross receipts. Discrepancy arose between the amount shown in the profit and loss account and the 26AS statement. The AO added the difference to the total income as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the balance amount. The AR agreed to the addition, leading to the assessment under scrutiny.

2. Belated Remittance of Employees' Contribution:
The Pr. CIT, exercising powers u/s 263, found that the assessee remitted employees' contribution belatedly without adding it back to the total income. A show cause notice was issued to explain the non-inclusion of belated payments. The assessee argued that all relevant amounts were paid before the due date for filing the return. The Pr. CIT directed the addition of a specific amount out of the belated payments, considering relevant case law and circulars.

3. Pr. CIT's Order u/s 263:
The assessee appealed against the Pr. CIT's order, contending that it was contrary to law and circumstances. The issue of disallowance of Employees' Contribution to PF & ESI was deliberated, citing a previous case. The Tribunal referred to relevant provisions and case law, concluding that the assessee's payments were made within the financial year or before filing the return, entitling them to deductions. Consequently, the order of the CIT u/s 263 was set aside, and the AO's decision was upheld.

4. Assessee's Appeal:
Considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the belated payments were made within the stipulated period. The decision was pronounced in favor of the assessee, overturning the Pr. CIT's order and restoring the AO's assessment. The grounds raised by the assessee were upheld, resulting in the allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and application of relevant legal provisions and precedents resulted in the favorable outcome for the assessee, highlighting the importance of timely compliance with payment obligations and the significance of providing supporting evidence in tax assessments.