TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibutions were considered for allowing as a deduction if paid before last date of filing the return under s. 139(1). Undisputedly, in the instant case, both the employer's and employees' contributions were not paid before statutory dates defined under PF Act, but the actual payment, was before the last date of filing the return under s. 139(1) of IT Act. The verdict of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Dharmendra Sharma [ 2007 (11) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of payments towards PF and ESI as the same were paid before the due date of filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yer's/employees' contributions made towards provident fund and ESI for alleged belated payments. While doing so, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the decision (sic-deletion) of the second proviso to Section 43B of the Act, thereby placing the misconceived interpretation on the provisions of said section of the Act. 2. That the submissions, as made, along with the individual view during the appellate proceedings and the amendment to Section 43B of the Act stood arbitrarily disregarded by the learned CIT(A), while confirming the disallowance. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in viewing the delay in making such contributions without reference to the provisions of Section 43B of the Act read with the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ployer's and employees' contribution both, accordingly, the learned Authorised Representative contended that no distinction can be made now, even if the disallowance has been made with respect to the employees' contribution under Section 2(24)(x) r/w Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Learned Authorised Representative also placed on record the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT v. Sobari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269, wherein question before the High Court was with regard to allowing the deduction under Section 36(1)(va) r/w Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43B of the Act. Attention was drawn to the pp. 8 to 12 of the order of the High Court wherein question referred to the Hon'ble High Court and elaborate discuss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due date for furnishing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The disallowance made by invoking provisions of Section 43B pertains to deduction claimed with reference to employer's contribution. After discussing in detail the history of provisions of Section 2(24)(x) and Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act, and the amendment brought therein by various Finance Acts, the High Court observed as under: After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we have carefully examined the above statutory provisions of the Act including definition of Section 2(24)(x) and Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B(b), which reads thus: '2(24)(x) 'income' includes- any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions of payment of tax under the provisions of the Act, Section 43B(b) was inserted by Finance Act, 1983 which came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1984. Therefore, again the provision of Section 43B(b) clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of the Act including Section 36(1) Clause (va) of the Act, even prior to the insertion of that clause the assessee is entitled to get statutory benefit of deduction of payment of tax from the Revenue. If that provision is read along with the first proviso of the said section which was inserted by Finance Act, 1987 which came into effect from 1st April, 1988, the letters numbered as Clause (a) or Clause (c) or Clause (d) or Clause (e) or Clause (f) are omitted from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicability of Section 43B(b) and also omission of Clause (a) or (c) or (d) or (f) referred to above occurred in the first proviso to Section 43B, support the case of the assessee and also relevant paras extracted from Allied Motor's case and para 59 referred to supra in this judgment from the Finance Bill with all fours support the case of the assessee/respondents. Therefore, we have no answer the substantial question of law No. 1 framed by this Court in these appeals at the instance of the Revenue against them viz. in the negative. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question No. 1 framed in these appeals in the negative. 5. It is crystal clear from the detailed discussion made by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
