Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune V. Shri Pradeep Barku Patil, Pune

ITA 1769/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 176924514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 43B; 37(1); 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1769/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRADEEP BARKU PATIL, 77/2, AZAD COLONY NO.2, PACHPEER CHOWK, KALEWAI, PIMPRI, PUNE 411017 PAN NO. AJCPP3742K .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 09-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-09-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 14-06-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SHUBHAM EN TERPRISES WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LABOUR CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIER. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 13-10-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27,06,220/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM CLAUSE 16(B) OF FORM N O. 3CD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE EMPLOYEES CONTR IBUTION TOWARDS 2 PF AMOUNTING TO RS.32,12,365/- AND EMPLOYEES CONTR IBUTION TO ESI AMOUNTING TO RS.7,65,177/- TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUN T WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. REJECTING THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RELYIN G ON VARIOUS DECISIONS HELD THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TOTALLING TO RS.39,77,542/- IS FORMING PART OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.2(24 )(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(VA) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE, THEREFORE, ADDED TH E SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1 IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AS WELL AS THE DECISION O F THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GHATGE PATIL T RANSPORTERS VIDE ITA NOS.340 AND 341/PN/2010 FOR A.YRS 2003-04 AND 2 004-05 DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT EVEN EMPLOYEES C ONTRIBUTION PAID WITHIN DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME IS AL LOWABLE. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IGNORING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 2(24)(X) R.W.S. 36(1)(VA) AS PER WHICH EMPLOYE E'S CONTRIBUTION TO ESI, PF AND PENSION FUND IS DEDUCTIBL E ONLY IF PAYMENT IS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED IN T HE RESPECTIVE ACT, RULE, ORDER OR NOTIFICATION GOVERNIN G SUCH FUNDS IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT , 1961? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN IGNORING THE CLEAR DISTI NCTION BETWEEN EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO ESI, PF AND PENSION FUND A ND EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION AND THE FACT THAT THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD, 319 ITR 306 IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION? 3 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO PF/ESI/PENSION FUND IS SUBJECT TO PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 43 B OF THE ACT? 4. WHETHER THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 43B IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO EMPLOY ER'S CONTRIBUTION AND NOT TO EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION AND HENCE, WHETHER SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 43B OMITTED W.E.F. 01. 04.2004 IS RETROSPECTIVE OR NOT, IS NOT GERMANE TO ISSUE OF EMPLOY EE'S CONTRIBUTION? 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FILED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPORTED I N 265 CTR 64 (GUJ.) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS NOT CREDITED THE SUM RECEIVED BY IT AS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO EM PLOYEES ACCOUNT IN RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE AS P RESCRIBED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA), THE ASSESSEE SHAL L NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF SUCH AMOUNT THOUGH HE DEPOSITS THE SAID SUM BEFORE THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S.43B, I.E. PRIOR TO FILI NG OF RETURN U/S.139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITT ED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF 4 CIT VS. HINDUSTAN ORGANICS CHEMICALS LTD. REPORTED IN 366 ITR 1 (BOMBAY). APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE ISSUE ALSO STAN DS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESSAE TERAOKA PVT. LTD. V S. DY.CIT REPORTED IN 100 DTR 134 (KAR.) AND IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 10 0 DTR 129 (KAR.) FURTHER, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR REPORTED IN 360 ITR 70 (RAJ.) HAS ALSO TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED . 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHE R THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF AND ESI PAID AFTER THE STAT UTORY DUE DATES BUT DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN PRESCRIBED U/S.139(1) IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE OR NOT. WE FIND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN ORGANICS CHEMICALS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED AN IDENTICAL ISS UE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESTATED CONTENTION. SEC TION 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WAS INSERTED IN THE ACT WITH EF FECT FROM APRIL 1, 1984, BY WHICH THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WITH REGARD TO TAX, DUTY AND CONTRIBUTION TO WELFARE FUNDS STOOD DISCONTINUED AND UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT, IT BECAME MANDATOR Y FOR THE ASSESSEES TO ACCOUNT FOR THE AFORESTATED ITEMS NOT ON A ME RCANTILE BASIS BUT ON A CASH BASIS. THIS SITUATION CONTINUED BETWEE N APRIL 1, 5 1984, AND APRIL 1, 1988, WHEN PARLIAMENT AGAIN AMEN DED SECTION 43B AND INSERTED THE FIRST PROVISO THERETO WHICH, INTE R ALIA, LAID DOWN THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE A SSESSEE BY WAY OF TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE, IF PAID BY THE ASSESSEE E VEN AFTER THE CLOSING OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR BUT BEFORE THE DATE O F FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B ON ACTUAL PAYMENT BASIS AND SUCH DEDU CTION WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE FOR THAT ACCOUNTING YEAR. THIS PRO VISO, HOWEVER, DID NOT APPLY TO CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES TO THE LABOUR WELFARE FUNDS. IN VIEW THEREOF, BY THE FI NANCE ACT, 1988, THE SECOND PROVISO CAME TO BE INSERTED WHICH READ AS UN DER: ''PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL, IN RESPEC T OF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B), BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUCH SUM HA S ACTUALLY BEEN PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36.' THEREAFTER, THE SAID SECOND PROVISO WAS FURTHER AMENDED , VIDE THE FINANCE ACT, 1989, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1989, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 'PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL, IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B), BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUCH SUM H AS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36, AND WHERE SUCH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OTHERWISE THAN IN CASH, THE SUM HAS BEEN REALISED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE DUE DATE. ON A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISOS, IT BECAME E X FACIE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES-EMPLOYERS WERE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIONS ONLY IF THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANY FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMP LOYEES STOOD CREDITED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE GIVEN IN THE REL EVANT ACT. HOWEVER, THE-SECOND, PROVISO ONCE AGAIN CREATED FURTH ER DIFFICULTIES FOR THE ASSESSEES-EMPLOYERS; THEREFORE, INDUSTRY ONCE AG AIN MADE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE WHO, AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE DIFFICULTIES, INSERTED AN AMENDMEN T, VIDE THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, WHICH CAME INTO FORCE WITH EFFEC T FROM APRIL 1, 2004. IN OTHER WORDS, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2004 , TWO CHANGES WERE MADE IN SECTION 43B, VIZ., DELETION OF THE SECON D PROVISO TO SECTION 43B AND FURTHER AMENDMENT IN THE FIRST PROVISO , WHICH READS AS UNDER : 'PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHAL L APPLY IN RELA- TION TO ANY SUM WHICH IS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE FOR BURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH SUM W AS INCURRED AS AFORESAID AND THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SUCH RETURN. 6 THEREFORE, THE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, PUT ON PAR THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTIONS OF TAX, DUTY, C ESS AND FEE ON THE ONE HAND WITH CONTRIBUTIONS TO VARIOUS EMPLOYEE'S WELF ARE FUNDS ON THE OTHER. THE SECTION REFERRED TO ABOVE, VIZ., SECTION 43B AND THE AMENDMENTS THERETO CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. REPORTED IN [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) WHEN THE SUPREME COURT, INT ER ALIA, HELD THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SAID SECTION BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2004, WERE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND WOULD OPERATE FROM APRIL ,1, 1988. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RELYING UPON THE AFO RESAID JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, HAS DISMISSED THE REVENU E'S APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPRESSLY HELD THAT TH E AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 43B THAT WERE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, ARE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, WE F IND MAT THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,82,77,138 ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAYE D PAYMENT OF PROVIDENT FUND OF THE EMPLOYEES 7 CONTRIBUTION. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES ON THIS COUNT AS SOUGHT TO BE CONTENDED BY MR. MALHOTRA ON BEHALF OF THE REVEN UE. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DEDUCTI ON COULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION IS 2006-07. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC TION 43B QUOTED ABOVE WAS DELETED WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2 004, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY THE FIRST PROVISO WAS ALSO AMENDED BRINGIN G ABOUT A UNIFORMITY IN (REDUCTIONS CLAIMED TOWARDS TAX, DUTY, CESS AND FEE ON THE ONE HAND, AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND, SUPERANNUATION FUND AND OTHER WELFARE FUNDS ON THE OTHER. THESE DEDUCTIONS BEING CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 43B WH ICH CAME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2004, WOU LD HAVE CLEARLY APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS FULL Y JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,82,77,138 ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED PAYMENT OF PROVIDENT FUND OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION . AS FAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE INC OME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MERELY FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS IN T HE CASE OF THIS VERY ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS IN DELETING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.10,00,300 INCURRED TOWARDS BOND REGISTRATION CHARGE S AND IN VIEW .THEREOF, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CA ME TO THE FINDING THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS A REVENUE EXPEN DITURE AND, HENCE, ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE IN ANY WAY SAID TO BE VITIATED ON THE GROU ND OF PERVERSITY OR ANY ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND , THEREFORE, DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WHICH NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED BY THIS COURT. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 7 6.1 SIMILARLY, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 VIDE ITA NO.1272/PN/2012 ORDER DATED 27-09-2013 HAS DECIDED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DI SMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX THAT THE CONTROVERSY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTERS LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A). IN THE SAID PR ECEDENT, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT EVEN EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTIONS TOWA RDS PF AND ESI WHICH ARE PAID WITHIN DUE DATE OF FILING OF RET URN OF INCOME IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE BEEN PAI D BEYOND THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE RESPECTIVE ACT. THE TRIBUNA L NOTICED A SIMILAR ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US, AND AFTER FOLLOWING THE JUD GEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE AIMIL LTD. (SUPR A) AND ALSO THAT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAKHANI RUBBERS WORKS (SUPRA) CONCLUDED THE ISSUE IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID TWO JUDGEMENTS ARE DIRECTLY ON THE POINT OF DEDUCTIBILITY OF EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO WARDS PF AND ESI AND ARE BASED ON THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT OF T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALAM EXTRUSIONS LT D. 319 ITR 306 (SC). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF THE PR ECEDENTS OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO THE PRECEDEN TS BY WAY OF THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND T HE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO REASON TO DEPART FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTERS LTD. (SUPRA) TO THE EFFECT T HAT EVEN IN CASE OF EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS PF AND ESI WHICH A RE PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME I S AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THUS, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REVENUE HAS TO FAIL IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6.2 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED PAYM ENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI. WE ACCORDINGL Y UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORD INGLY DISMISSED. 8 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10-09-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE DATED: 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE