TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t fund. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant details rightly deleted the additions made by the A.O. We do not see any reasons to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, we inclined to uphold the CIT(A) order and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue - ITA No. 484/VIZ/2018 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2019 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri I. Kama Sastry FCA. For the Department : Shri V. Appala Raju Sr.DR ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad, dated 13/06/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial available on record and orders of the authorities below. 7. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the contribution received from the employees paid before due date of filing of the return, is allowable or not. In this context, the ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., in ITA No. 609/VIZ/2014, dated 29/07/2016 held as under:- 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. made additions towards belated payment of employees contributions to PF. According to the A.O., employees contribution to provident fund is deductible under the provisions of section 36(1)(v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the assessee that there is no distinction between employer and employee contribution after omission of second proviso of section 43B of the Act by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004. We find force in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that there is no difference between employees and employer contribution under the PF Act. Section 6 of Provident Fund Act provides for contribution and the manner in which such contribution shall be made. Paragraph 30 of the PF Scheme provides for payment of contributions. As per the said scheme, the employer at the first instance shall make the total contribution including employees share. Paragraph 32 provides for recovery of member share of contribution and as per the scheme, the emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees. The proviso to section provides that any sum paid by the assessee on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then no disallowance can be made under the provisions of section 43B of the Act. A careful consideration of section 43B of the Act, it is clear that an extension is granted to the assessee to make the payment of PF contributions or any other fund till the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no difference between employees and employer contribution to PF and if such contribution is made on or before the due date of furnishing return of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. 35 Taxman 616, the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. held that the deductions should be allowed for the payment of employees contribution made before the due date of filing of return. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner, the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court held that contribution paid after the due date under the respective Act, but before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act and or u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 9. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, reported in (2015) 378 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, then no disallowance can be made towards employees contribution to provident fund. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant details rightly deleted the additions made by the A.O. We do not see any reasons to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, we inclined to uphold the CIT(A) order and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. 8. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (supra), we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld.CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 11th day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
