TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was delay in deposit of ESI EPF contribution but the same were deposited with the appropriate authorities before the due date of filing of return of income. We find that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited [ 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] held that if the employees‟ contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income Tax Act is concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing the deduction on account of employees contribution to PF on the ground that it is not paid within the due date as provided u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, even though most of the payments were made within the extended period of 5 days. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing the deduction on account of employees contribution to PF on the ground that it is not paid within the due date as provided u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, even though it was paid before due date of the filing of return of income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing the deduction on account of employees contribution to PF as per the provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn of income. He therefore submitted that since the amounts have been deposited before the filing of return of income, no disallowance is called for and for this proposition he relied on the decision rendered by Hon ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) place reliance on the decision rendered by Hon ble Delhi High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He therefore submitted that the addition made by AO be deleted. 7. Learned DR supported the order of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition made on account of delayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the revenue that the distinction between employers‟ contribution on the one hand and the employees‟ contribution on the other. On the foundation that when employees‟ contribution was recovered from their salaries / wages that is the trust money in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, recourse of law providing for treating the same as income that the assessee received as the employees‟ contribution would only enable the assessee to claim deduction only on actual payment made by due date specified under the provisions of the Act. The Bench while dealing with the same has opined thus: 11. Before we delve into this discussion, we may take note of some more provisions of the Act. Section 2(24) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
