9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1295 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of delayed deposit of employees contribution to provident fund and Employees state Insurance scheme - HELD THAT - We find for the month of December, 2016 of employees contribution towards provident fund which was required to be deposited according to the respective Provident Fund Act on or before 15th January, 2017 was deposited on 16th January, 2017. The Ministry of Labour and Employment has issued a letter dated 12/01/2017 wherein as a special case due to the problems on the portal on allotment of UAN, the due date for payment of contribution for the month of December, 2016 was extended upto 20th January, 2017. Assessee has already deposited the same on 16th January 2017, therefore, there is no delay in payment of employees contribution of provident fund for the month of December, 2016. Therefore, the disallowance is incorrectly confirmed by the learned CIT(A). With respect to the employees contribution to ESIC undisputed facts shows that though such contribution is deposited after the due date prescribed under the respective law, but before filing of the return of income. We find that identical issue is GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD. 2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT which is the jurisdictional High Court wherein it has been held that both employees and employer s contribution are covered under the amendment to section 43B of the Act relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT and therefore, if such payments are made on or before the due date of filing of the return of income, same are not disallowable. We find that instead of following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, the learned CIT(A) has followed the decision of non jurisdictional High Court, that is, Gujarat High Court.GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - As the jurisdictional High Court decision squarely covers the issue in favour of the assessee, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees contribution to ESIC. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund. 2. Disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to Employees State Insurance scheme. 3. Ex parte appellate order without sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Issue 1: Disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund The appeal was filed against the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to provident fund. The assessee contended that the sum had been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, citing judicial precedents to support the claim. The Central Processing Unit disallowed the amount, leading to an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The appellate order confirmed the disallowance, relying on a decision of the Gujarat High Court. The assessee argued that the decision disregarded the Bombay High Court's ruling in a similar case. The ITAT found that the contribution was deposited within the extended due date as per a letter from the Ministry of Labour and Employment, thus directing the deletion of the disallowance. Issue 2: Disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to Employees State Insurance scheme The appeal also contested the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to the Employees State Insurance scheme. The ITAT noted that the contribution was made after the due date but before the filing of the return of income. Referring to a decision of the Bombay High Court, the ITAT held that if such payments are made before the due date of filing the return of income, they are not disallowable. The ITAT directed the assessing officer to delete the disallowance of the contribution to the Employees State Insurance scheme. Issue 3: Ex parte appellate order without sufficient opportunity to the assessee The assessee raised concerns about the ex parte nature of the appellate order, stating that it was passed without granting sufficient opportunity and in disregard of relevant judicial decisions. The ITAT acknowledged the discrepancy in following the decision of the Gujarat High Court instead of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of both disallowances and allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the disallowances of delayed deposits to both the provident fund and the Employees State Insurance scheme. The ITAT emphasized the importance of timely deposits and adherence to due dates as per relevant laws and judicial interpretations.
|
