Vedvan Consultants Private Limited, New Delhi V. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 1312/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7562 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRINALINI SAPRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT GOYAL
• Section: 43B; 48; 6; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 1312/DEL/2020 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2018-19 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., FLAT NO. 15, SANSKRIT NAGAR SOCIETY, PLOT NO. 3, SEC.-14, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085 VS DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AA BCV1999D ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUMIT GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : MS. MRINALINI SAPRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 23 . 0 8 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 .0 8 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-9, NEW DELHI DATED 12.02.20 20. 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDI TION OF RS.94,33,788/- U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE TH AT AN ADDITION U/S 36(1)(VA) HAS BEEN MADE BY THE DCIT, C PC, BANGALORE ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN DEPOSITING THE ESI AND EPF. THE COPY OF TAX AUDIT REPORT WHICH IS PART OF THE I NCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT CAN BE FOUND TH AT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BEYOND THE DUE DATE AS PRESCRI BED IN THE ESI & PF ACT UNDER THE IT ACT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 2 IT IS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RE TURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19. 3. THE ISSUE AT HAND REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDU CTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI. THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE SAME HA VE NOT PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF D EDUCTION. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR RELIED ON A PLETHORA OF CA SE LAWS WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AT PAGE NOS. 4 & 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND CANVASSED RELYING ON THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 43B. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTI ON 36(1)(VA) AND SECTION 43B, CASES CITED AND ALSO THE JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE. TO MENTION A FEW, MADRAS HIGH COURT : OCTOBER 23, 2018 M/S. UNIFAC MANAGEMENT SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD . VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATION CIRCLE 3 (2) , CHENNAI THE SCOPE OF SECTION 43B AND SECTION 36(1)(VA) ARE DIFFERENT AND THUS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF READING BOTH PROV ISIONS TOGETHER TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SUM BELATEDLY PAID TOWA RDS SUCH CONTRIBUTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN SUCH SUM IS, ADMITTED LY, A SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE/EMPLOYER FROM HIS EMPLOYEE . THEREFORE, FOR CONSIDERING SUCH QUESTION, APPLICATI ON OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) ALONE IS THE PROPER COURS E AND ANY ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 3 OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD ONLY DEFEAT THE OBJECT A ND SCOPE OF BOTH THE PROVISIONS VIZ., 43B AND 36(1)(VA). ACCORDINGLY, THE WRIT PETITION FAILS AND THE SAME I S DISMISSED . KERALA HIGH COURT : [2015] 378 ITR 443 : SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN VERSUS M/S MERCHEM LIMITED THE DISTINCTION DRAWN TO CREDIT THE AMOUNT OF THE E MPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE WAS WITH A CLEAR OBJECTIVE AND THERE I S NO ILLEGALITY OR OTHER LEGAL INFIRMITY IN CLASSIFYING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYER IN THE MATTER OF CREDITIN G THE SAME TO THE APPROPRIATE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES. CONSIDERING SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS IT STANDS, WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE FROM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF CLA USE (X) OF SUB-SECTION (24) OF SECTION 2 APPLIES, ASSESSEE SHA LL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF SUCH AMOUNT IN COMPUTING T HE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28 IF SUCH SUM IS NOT CREDIT ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 4 BOMBAY HIGH COURT: [2014] 368 ITR 749 (BOM): OCTOBE R 14, 2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD. THE EMPLOYER ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIO N ONLY IF THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND STO OD CREDITED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AND NOT OTHERWISE FOLLO WING THE DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S. ALOM EX TRUSIONS LTD. [SUPREME COURT] BOTH EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTIONS ARE COVERED UNDER THE AMENDMENT TO SE CTION 43B OF I.T. ACT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THA T PAYMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO BENEFITS OF SECTION 43B 6. DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RELIED UPO N BY THE ASSESSEE CITED AS CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (SUP RA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE BECAUSE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. CASE QUA EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AS PER SECTION 43B(B) OF THE ACT AND NOT QUA EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION U/S 36(1 )(VA) OF THE ACT. 7. CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) PROVIDES AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF THE INCOME . SUB-CLAUSE (X) TO THE SAID CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT INCOME TO INCL UDE ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYEES AS CONT RIBUTION TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR ANY FU ND SET UP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ESI ACT OR ANY OTHER FUND F OR THE WELFARE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES. SECTION 36 OF THE ACT PE RTAINS TO THE OTHER DEDUCTIONS. SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE SAID SECTI ON PROVIDES ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 5 FOR VARIOUS DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION. CLAUSE (VA) OF THE SAID SUB-SECTION PROVIDES FOR DE DUCTION OF ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY OF HIS EM PLOYEES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE (2 4) OF SECTION 2 APPLY, IF SUCH SUM IS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. EXPLANATION TO THE SAID CLAUSE PROVID ES THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'DUE DATE TO MEAN THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CR EDIT AN EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCOUNT I N THE RELEVANT FUND UNDER ANY ACT, RULE, ORDER OR NOTIFIC ATION ISSUED THERE-UNDER OR UNDER ANY STANDING ORDER, AWARD, CON TRACT OF SERVICE OR OTHERWISE. 8. SECTION 43B SPECIFIES THE LIST OF DEDUCTIONS THA T ARE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT ONLY UPON THEIR ACTUAL PAY MENT. EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION IS COVERED IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 4 3B. ACCORDING TO IT, IF ANY SUM TOWARDS EMPLOYER'S CONT RIBUTION TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR GRATUI TY FUND OR ANY OTHER FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES IS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FURNI SHING THE RETURN OF THE INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTI ON 139, ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 43B AND SUCH DEDUCTION WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE FOR THE ACCOUNTI NG YEAR . THIS PROVISION DOES NOT COVER EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 36 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 6 9. SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND SECTION 43B(B) OPERATE IN DIFFERENT FIELDS, I.E., FORMER TAKES CARE OF EMPLOYEE'S CONTR IBUTION AND LATER THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION. THEREFORE, AN AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISO THERETO ONLY WITH REGARD TO PORTION OF AMOUNT PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO CONTRIBUTORY FUND . SO FAR AS THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION IS CONCERNED, THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION OF AMOUNTS AS PROVIDED UN DER SECTION 36(1)(VA) ONLY IF AMOUNTS SO RECEIVED FROM THE EMPL OYEE IS CREDITED IN SPECIFIED ACCOUNT WITHIN DUE DATE AS PR OVIDED UNDER RELEVANT STATUTE (CIT V. MERCHEM LTD. 61 TAXMANN.CO M 119). 10. THE SECTION 43B OF THE ACT COVERS ONLY EMPLOYER 'S CONTRIBUTION AND DOES NOT COVER EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBU TION, SOMETIMES THEY HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE PROVISION O F SECTION 43B ON EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION AS WELL AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION TO EMPLOYER EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRI BUTION IS DEPOSITED BY THE DUE DATE OF FILING INCOME TAX RETU RN (ITR) AS MENTIONED UNDER SECTION 139(1). 11. TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND CERTAINTY ON NON APPLICA BILITY OF SECTION 43B ON EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO SPECIFIED FUNDS, THE BUDGET 2021 HAS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND SECTION 43B AS UNDER: (A) AMEND SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT BY INSERTING ANOTHER EXPLANATION 2 TO THE SAID CLAUSE TO CLARIFY THAT TH E PROVISION OF SECTION 43B DOES NOT APPLY AND DEEMED TO NEVER HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE DUE DAT E UNDER THIS CLAUSE; AND ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 7 (B) AMEND SECTION 43B OF THE ACT BY INSERTING EXPLA NATION 5 TO THE SAID SECTION TO CLARIFY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION DO NOT APPLY AND DEEMED TO NEVER HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO A SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECT ION 2 APPLIES. 12. THE LANGUAGE OF NEWLY PROPOSED EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 43B MAKES I T CLEAR THAT THE AMENDMENT IS RETROSPECTIVE. 13. THE RATIONAL OF THE AMENDMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE MEMORANDUM TO THE FINANCE BILL, 2021 AS BELOW: THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIO N AND EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS WELFARE FUND. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS WELFARE FUNDS IS A MECHANISM T O ENSURE THE COMPLIANCE BY THE EMPLOYERS OF THE LABOUR WELFARE L AWS. HENCE, IT NEEDS TO BE STRESSED THAT THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD S WELFARE FUNDS SUCH AS ESI AND PF NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM T HE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS WELFARE FUNDS. EMPLOYEE'S CONT RIBUTION IS EMPLOYEE OWN MONEY AND THE EMPLOYER DEPOSITS THIS CONTRIBUTI ON ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEE IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITY. BY LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION, THE EMPLOYERS GET UNJUSTLY ENRICHED B Y KEEPING THE MONEY BELONGING TO THE EMPLOYEES. CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36 OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED TO THE ACT VIDE FINANCE ACT 1987 AS A MEASURES OF PENALIZING EMPLOYERS WHO MIS-UTILIZE EM PLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTIONS. 14. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE LAW IS NOW MADE CLEAR THAT EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO SPECIFIED FUN D WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IF THERE IS DELAY IN DEPOSITS AS PER THE DUE DATES MENTIONED IN THE RESPECTIVE LEGISLATION. ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 8 15. DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RELIED UP ON BY THE ASSESSEE CITED AS CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (SUP RA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE BECAUSE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. CASE QUA EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AS PER SECTION 43B(B) OF THE ACT AND NOT QUA EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION U/S 36(1 )(VA) OF THE ACT. 16. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF EAGLE TRANS SHIPPING & LOGISTICS (INDIA) (P.) LTD. VS ACIT IN ITA NO. 324/DEL/2017 O RDER DATED 25.07.2019 WHICH WAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BH ARAT HOTELS LTD. 410 ITR 417, IT HELD, 9. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT, IT I S APPARENTLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUC TIONS QUA THE SUM RECEIVED FROM ANY OFFICE EMPLOYEE TO WHICH PROV ISIONS UNDER SUB- SECTION (X) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2 IS APPLIED ONLY, IF SUCH SUM IS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TH E EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. DUE DATE IS FURTHER DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION, WHI CH MEANS, THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED AS AN EM PLOYER TO CREDIT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCO UNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND UNDER ANY ACT OR RULE OR ORDER OR NOT IFICATION ISSUED THEREUNDER OR ANY STANDING ORDER OR AWARD OR SERVICE OR OTHERWISE. MEANING THEREBY, IN CASE, EMPLOYER FAILS TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TOWARDS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION ON ACCOUNT OF PF & ESI WITH CONCERNED DEPARTMENT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 9 UNDER PF & ESI, THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION TO THAT EXTENT. 10. DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RELIED UP ON BY THE ASSESSEE CITED AS CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (SUP RA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE BECAUSE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. CASE QUA EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AS PER SECTION 43B(B) OF THE ACT AND NOT QUA EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION U/S 36(1 )(VA) OF THE ACT. 11. HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CI T VS. BHARAT HOTELS LTD. (2019) 410 ITR 417 (DELHI) (SUPRA) DECI DED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE QUA DELAYED DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CO NTRIBUTION ON ACCOUNT OF PF & ESI AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT IF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION ON ACCOUNT OF PF & ESI IS DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE TH E DUE DATE, AND THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION ON ACCOUNT OF PF & E SI DEPOSITED BEYOND THE STIPULATED PERIOD WOULD NOT MA KE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FROM I TS RETURN. FOR READY PERUSAL, OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT O F CIT VS. BHARAT HOTELS LTD. (SUPRA) IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER:- '7. THE ISSUE HERE CONCERNS THE INTERPLAY OF SECTIO N 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT ALON GSIDE PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MI SCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 (ESPECIALLY REGULATION 38 OF T HE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS SCHEME, 1952) AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948. THE AO HAD BR OUGHT TO TAX AMOUNTS WHICH WERE DEDUCTED BY THE EMPLOYER/ASS ESSEE ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 10 FROM THE SALARIES AND WAGES PAYABLE TO ITS EMPLOYEE S, AS PART OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT T HE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO CLAIM DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE MAIN PART OF SE CTION 43-B OF THE ACT IS NOT AN ISSUE. THE QUESTION THE AO HAD TO THEN DECIDE WAS WHETHER THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED FROM THE SALARIES OF THE EMPLOYEES WHICH HAD TO BE DEPOSITED WITHIN THE STIP ULATED TIME (IN TERMS OF NOTIFICATION/CIRCULAR DATED 19.03.1964 WHICH WAS MODIFIED ON 24.10.1973), AS FAR AS THE EPF CONTRIBU TION WENT AND THE PERIOD OF THREE WEEKS AS FAR AS THE ESI CON TRIBUTIONS WENT. THE AO MADE A TABULAR ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT T O THE CONTRIBUTIONS DEDUCTED AND ACTUALLY DEPOSITED. THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYEES' PROVID ENT FUNDS ACT, 1952 AND THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT, 19 48 WAS THAT IN RESPECT OF THE EPF SCHEME CONTRIBUTIONS THE DEDUCTIONS WERE TO BE DEPOSITED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE SUCCEEDI NG WAGE PERIOD WITH A GRACE PERIOD OF 5 DAYS; FOR ESI CONTR IBUTIONS THE DEPOSIT WITH THE CONCERNED STATUTORY AUTHORITY HAD TO BE MADE WITHIN THREE WEEKS OF THE SUCCEEDING WAGE MONTH/PER IOD. THE CIT IN THIS CASE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS - MADE BY THE AO BASED ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNTS THAT WERE DISALLOWED. THE ITA T HOWEVER GRANTED COMPLETE RELIEF. 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS ACT AND ESI ACT AS WELL AS THE CONCERNED NOTIFICATIONS WHICH GRANTED A GRACE PERIO D OF 5 DAYS (WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN LATE WITHDRAWN RECENTLY ON 08.01.2016), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ITAT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE UNDOUBTEDLY WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT AND PROPERLY TREAT SU CH AMOUNTS AS HAVING BEEN DULY DEPOSITED, WHICH WERE IN FACT DEPO SITED WITHIN ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 11 THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED (I.E. 15 + 5 DAYS IN THE CASE OF EPF AND 21 DAYS + ANY OTHER GRACE, PERIOD IN TERMS OF THE E XTENT NOTIFICATION). AS FAR AS THE AMOUNTS CONSTITUTING D EDUCTIONS FROM EMPLOYEES' SALARIES TOWARDS THEIR CONTRIBUTION S, WHICH WERE MADE BEYOND SUCH STIPULATED PERIOD, OBVIOUSLY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION FR OM ITS RETURNS. 9. IN VIEW OF THIS DISCUSSION, THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CONTRIBU TIONS MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATES WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY MADE AND GRANT RELIEF TO SUCH OF THEM WHICH QUALIFIED FOR SU CH RELIEF IN TERMS OF THE PREVAILING PROVISIONS AND NOTIFICATION S. WE ALSO CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDU CTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT.' 12. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE AND FO LLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. BHARAT HOTELS LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT EN TITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.4,29,110/- U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITING THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO WARDS ESI & PF AS PER PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 2(24)(X) READ WI TH SECTION 36(1)(VA) AFTER DUE DATE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM TABL E EXTRACTED IN PRECEDING PARA NO.5. SO, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, FINDING NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ITA NO.1312/DEL/2020 VEDVAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 12 17. HENCE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT (A). 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/08/2021. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26/08/2021 *SUBODH KUMAR, SR. PS* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR