2017 (9) TMI 1688 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on account of late deposit of PF, ESI and professional tax - due date - applicability of provisions of Section 36(l)(va) and Section 7(24)(x) ignored - Held that - The payment by the Assessee employer towards the employees contribution of the Provident Fund was made before the date of filing of the return by the Assessee and thus, in terms of the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AIMIL Ltd. 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT it was within the due date for the purpose of Section 36 (1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 43 (B) thereof. The Court finds that the decision has consistently been followed in later decisions of this Court - No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against ITAT order for AY 2013-14
- Correctness of deletion of addition of late deposit of PF, ESI, and professional tax

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The main issue raised was whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition of a substantial amount made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of the late deposit of Provident Fund (PF), Employee State Insurance (ESI), and professional tax, while allegedly ignoring the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 7(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT had both found that the Assessee employer had made the payment towards the employees' contribution of the Provident Fund before the date of filing the return. This action was considered within the 'due date' as per the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AIMIL Ltd. The court noted that this decision had been consistently followed in subsequent judgments of the court and was also upheld by other High Courts, such as the Allahabad High Court and the Karnataka High Court.

3. The Revenue's counsel tried to convince the Court to reconsider the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AIMIL Ltd., but the Court observed that the decision had been consistently applied in later cases. As a result, the Court declined to entertain the question of law as proposed by the Revenue and dismissed the appeal.

4. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the addition of the amount related to late deposits of PF, ESI, and professional tax, based on the finding that the payments were made before the due date. The Court's decision was supported by the precedent set in previous cases and was deemed consistent with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.