2025 (1) TMI 757 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of expenditure towards employees contribution to ESIC/PF u/s 36(1)(va) - Timing of Salary Disbursement and Due Date Determination - HELD THAT - The issue towards taxability of belated employees contribution to PF/ESIC is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment in the case of Checkmate Services 2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT thus no merit in the case of the assessee for impermissibility of such adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act. Determination of due date - Month during which the disbursement of salary is actually made would be relevant for the purposes of determination of due date of deposit under the respective statute. The accrual of liability towards payment of salary without actual disbursement would not fasten obligation for deposits of employees contribution in the labour Acts per se. as observed by the co-ordinate bench in Kanoi Paper and Industries Ltd. 2001 (5) TMI 139 - ITAT CALCUTTA-E This aspect has not been found to be examined by the AO or CIT(A). Hence without expressing any opinion on merits on this aspect we deem it expedient to restore the matter to the file of designated AO. It shall be open to the assessee to place factual matrix before the AO and take such plea for evaluation of the AO. AO shall examine this aspect and fresh order in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity. AO shall thus recompute the amount of disallowance u/s 36(i)(va) if any on the above basis in accordance with law. Assessee shall be entitled to appropriate relevant u/s 36(i)(va) where it is found that deposits have been made towards PF/ESIC within the due date from the close of month of actual disbursement of salary/wages - Appeal of the assessee is allowed ex-parte for statistical purposes. Disallowing the business expenses - Assessee was awarded a contract by Whirlpool of India Limited and on the basis of back to back contracts it has given the sub-contracts to Meliora Services. Assessee has completed the contract with the assistance of Meliora and paid the relevant job work charges after deducting relevant TDS. Assessee also claimed the relevant explanation only in its Profit Loss Account. AO has wrongly noticed that the assessee has given contract to Meliora Services to the extent - AO with the wrong information observed that the assessee has not deducted TDS on the difference amount accordingly proceeded to disallow the same. After considering the facts on record we observed that the total amount of the contract was which was already declared by the assessee in their books of account as income and offered to tax. Therefore the addition proposed by the AO is uncalled for.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment addresses the following core legal questions:

• Whether the addition of Rs. 1,368,501/- on account of delay in payment of employee's contribution towards EPF & ESIC beyond the due dates under Section 36(1)(v)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified.
• Whether the disallowance of business expenses amounting to Rs. 22,80,737/- was appropriate.
• Whether the provisions of Section 43B(b) that allow payments made on or before the due date of filing the return of income as deductible were considered.
• Whether the levy of interest under Sections 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was correct.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Delay in Payment of Employee's Contribution towards EPF & ESIC

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The issue revolves around Section 36(1)(v)(a) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment references the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which upheld the requirement for timely deposit of employee contributions to EPF/ESIC.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court observed that the issue was against the assessee based on the Supreme Court's decision. However, it considered an alternative plea regarding the calculation methodology for due dates based on actual salary disbursement.
• Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided evidence of actual salary disbursement dates and argued that contributions were made within the due dates calculated from these dates.
• Application of law to facts: The court noted that the methodology of calculating due dates based on actual disbursement was not examined by the lower authorities. It remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court acknowledged the assessee's reliance on judicial precedents that support the calculation of due dates from the actual disbursement month.
• Conclusions: The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for further examination and determination in light of the relevant judicial pronouncements.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Business Expenses

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The issue concerns the disallowance of expenses under the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding the discrepancy between the amounts recorded in the assessee's books and the invoices from Meliora Services.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that the Assessing Officer had incorrectly noted the contract amount and disallowed the difference without proper basis.
• Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided evidence of the contract amount, invoices, and TDS deductions, showing that the claimed expenses were accurate.
• Application of law to facts: The court concluded that the disallowance was based on a misunderstanding of the contract amount and directed its deletion.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the Revenue's objections but found them unsupported by the evidence.
• Conclusions: The disallowance of Rs. 22,80,737/- was deleted, and the ground was allowed in favor of the assessee.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The accrual of liability towards payment of salary without actual disbursement would not fasten obligation for deposits of employees' contribution in the labour Acts per se."
• Core principles established: The judgment underscores the importance of considering the actual disbursement of salary when determining due dates for EPF/ESIC contributions and the necessity of accurate record-keeping in contractual transactions.
• Final determinations on each issue: The court remanded the EPF/ESIC issue to the Assessing Officer for reevaluation and deleted the disallowance of business expenses, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

The judgment emphasizes the need for precise evaluation of facts and adherence to legal precedents, ensuring that tax assessments are both fair and legally sound.