DCIT Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore V. Indo Shell Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

ITA 1882/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6566 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D MANOJ KUMARCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: ARJUNRAJ CA S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Deemed dividend; TDS
• Section: 2(22)(e); 250; 12

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , % BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1882/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE. VS M/S. INDO SHELL AUTOMATIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. A-9, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KURICHI,COIMBATORE-641 021. PAN: AABCI 3140D ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. D.MANOJ KUMAR,CIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. ARJUNRAJ, C.A FOR S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.09.2021 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, COIMBATORE DA TED 02.03.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL:- 1) THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), COIMBATORE IS AGAI NST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IS ERRONEOUS BY L AW. 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY HOLDING T HAT THE ADVANCES WILL NOT COME UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTI ON 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN GIVING A FIND ING THAT THE ADVANCES WERE MADE BY A COMPANY TO A SISTER CONCERN AND ADJUSTED THE DUES FOR JOB WORK DONE BY THE SISTER C ONCERN. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO STATE HOW THE LIABILITIES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE SISTE R CONCERN 2 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION THEREB Y NOT ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF TH E I.TACT. 1961. 4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT CONSI DERING THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT: (A) IN KANTILAL MANILAL VS. CIT [1961] CITED IN 41 ITR 275 (SC), THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SECTION 2(22) DEALS WIT H VARIOUS TYPES OF CASES AND CREATES A FICTION BY WHICH CERTA IN RECEIPTS OR PARTS THEREOF ARE TREATED AS DIVIDEND FOR THE PURPO SE OF LEVY OF INCOME-TAX. (B) IN TARULATA SHYAM VS. CIT [1977] CITED IN 108 I TR 345 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 2 (22) THE LIABILITY TO TAX ATTACHES TO ANY AMOUNT TAKEN AS LO AN BY THE SHAREHOLDER FROM A CONTROLLED COMPANY TO THE EXTENT IT POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS AT THE MOMENT THE LOA N IS BORROWED AND IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE LOAN IS R EPAID BEFORE THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR OR NOT. 5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF BELATED PAYM ENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF ESI AND PF AMOUNT BY MER ELY RELYING ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRL.CIT, JAIPUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD., CITED IN [2017] 250 TAXMAN 16. HO WEVER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SLP FILED BY TH E DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (CITATION: [2017] 84 TAXMANN.COM 173). THE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE MERELY RELIED ON ITS OWN DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR CITED IN [2014] 363 ITR 70 /43 TAXMANN.COM 411 AND HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.22/2015 DATED 17.12.2015. HENCE THESE C ASE LAWS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS OF T HE ASSESSEES CASE. 6) THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE INDUSTRIES INDIA (PVT) LTD THAT WAS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RENDERED ON 24 JULY, 2015 WHICH IS PRIOR TO ISS UE OF CIRCULAR NO. 22/2015 DT. 17.12.2015 AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CIRCULAR NO.22/2015. 3 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 7) FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), MAY BE CANCEL LED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACT MANUFACTURING T O CATER NEEDS OF M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20013-14 ON 30 .11.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,97,870/-. THE ASSE SSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS COMPLETED U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ON 28.03.2016 AND DETERM INED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,96,29,142/- BY MAKING ADDITIONS TOW ARDS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR RS.4,75,00,481/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF BELATED PAYMEN T OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI AMOUNTING TO RS.6,30,791/-. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN A PPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER DELETED ADD ITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/ S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND BELATED PAYMENTS OF PF & ESI U/S.3 6(1)(VA) R.W.S 43B(B) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 4. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION F ROM GROUND NO.2 TO 4 OF REVENUE APPEAL IS DELETION OF A DDITIONS MADE TOWARDS LOANS & ADVANCES U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO IMPUGNED DI SPUTE ARE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY AND M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD . ARE RELATED CONCERNS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID A SUM OF RS.4,75,00,481/- TOWARDS VARIOUS EXPENSES INCLUDING EXCISE DUTY AND SERVICE TAX, SALARIES & WAGES, TDS PAYME NT AND BANK CHARGES ON BEHALF OF M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD . AND DEBITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED DEBIT BALANCE IN THE NAME OF M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. AS LOANS & ADVANCES BY A COMPANY TO SHAREHOLDER AND I NVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T.ACT, 196 1, AND MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS ADVANCES IN THE NAME OF M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TOWARDS ADVANCES U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT A PPRECIATING FACT THAT LIABILITIES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF SISTER CONCERN WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO LOANS OR ADVANC ES, WHICH 5 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 ATTRACTS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE DR FURTHER REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KANTILAL MANILAL VS.CIT (1961) 41 ITR 275 AND TH E DECISION OF TARULATA SHYAM VS.CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 SUBMITTE D THAT AMOUNT TAKEN AS LOAN BY SHAREHOLDER FROM A CONTROLL ED COMPANY TO THE EXTENT IT POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PR OFIT COMES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT . 6. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, STRONGLY SUPPORTING ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUB MITTED THAT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND M/S. INDO SHELL M OULD LTD. IS NORMAL COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO RELATE D COMPANIES AND FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE BEING CONTRACT MANUFACTURER FOR M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. IN T ERMS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES DATED 25.07.2011 HAS MADE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF M/S. IND O SHELL MOULD LTD. AND DEBITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT. FURTHER, SAID ADVANCE HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUSTED AGAINST RECEIVABLES FROM THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS LOANS OR ADVANCES TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) O F THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS 6 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 COMPLETELY ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, BECAUSE IF AT ALL, SAID PAYMENT IS LOANS O R ADVANCES, SAME NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHO LDERS OR CONCERN IN WHICH SHAREHOLDER IS HAVING BENEFICIAL I NTEREST, BUT SAME CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE U/S.2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS AL SO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO.1691 &1973/CHNY/2015 DATED 03.10.2018. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E), ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY TO A SHAREHOLDER IN THE NATURE OF LOAN S OR ADVANCES IS DEEMED TO BE DIVIDEND, IF SUCH SHAREHOL DER HOLDS MORE THAN 10% BENEFICIARY SHAREHOLDING IN THE COMPA NY. IN ORDER TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF T HE ACT, THERE SHOULD BE A PAYMENT BY A COMPANY TO THE SHAREHOLDER IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR ADVANCES, THEN IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDER, SAID LOANS OR ADVANCES SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE DEEMED DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF THE COMPANY . IN THIS 7 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 CASE, ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CERTAIN EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF M/S . INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGA INST RECEIVABLES FROM THEM. IF AT ALL, TRANSACTION BETW EEN ASSESSEE AND M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. IS IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR ADVANCES, THEN SAME NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE H ANDS OF M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S .2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN VOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, IN THE H ANDS OF COMPANY, BUT NOT IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDER. THERE FORE, ON THIS COUNT, ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 8. BE THAT AS IT MAY, FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS HAVING EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT WITH M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. AS PER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES DATED 25.07.2011 M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. HAS P AID A SUM OF RS.20 CRORES AS INTEREST FREE ADVANCE FOR UTILI ZING ENTIRE CAPACITY TO FULFILL ITS NEEDS. SINCE THERE IS A COM MERCIAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. INDO SH ELL MOULD LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CERTAIN EXPENSES OF M/S. 8 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. ON THEIR BEHALF AND DEBITED SAME TO THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. FURTHER, SA ID AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST RECEIVABLES FROM THEM. FR OM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT TRANSACTION BETWEEN TH E ASSESSEE AND M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD. IS A CLEAR COMMERCIA L TRANSACTION IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, SAME IS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CRE ATIVE DYEING & PRINTING PVT.LTD, 318 ITR 476, WHERE IT WAS CLEA RLY HELD THAT ADVANCES MADE BY A COMPANY TO A SISTER CONCERN AND ADJUSTED AGAINST DUES FOR JOB WORK DONE BY SISTER COMPANY I S OUTSIDE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT . THIS LEGAL POSITION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY CBDT AND ISSUED CIR CULAR NO.19/2017 DATED 12.06.2017 AND CLARIFIED THAT TRAD E ADVANCES WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF WORD ADVANCE U/S.2(22)(E ) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 1691 & 1973/CHNY /2015 DATED 03.10.2018, WHERE UNDER IDENTICAL SET OF FAC TS AND 9 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 IDENTICAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. INDO SHELL MOULD LTD., THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT TRANSACTIONS BET WEEN THE ASSESSEE AND COMPANY ARE NORMAL COMMERCIAL TRANSACT ION, WHICH IS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2( 22)(E) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND CONSISTENT WITH A VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DELETE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS DEEMED DIVID END UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE ARE IN CLINED TO UPHOLD FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REJECT GR OUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATIO N FROM GROUND NO.5 & 6 OF REVENUE APPEAL IS ADDITIONS TOWA RDS BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PF & ESI U/S.3 6(1)(VA) R.W.S 43B(B) OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. 10. THE LEARNED A.R FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT O F MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & INTE LLIGENCE INDIA 10 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 PVT. LTD. IN TCA. NOS.585 AND 586 OF 2015 DATED 24 .7.2015, WHERE IT WAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT EMPLOYEES CONT RIBUTION TOWARDS PF & ESI AFTER DUE DATE UNDER RESPECTIVE AC T, BUT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDE R INCOME TAX ACT IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. 11. THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD (SUPRA). HOWEVER, HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN LIGHT OF CIRCULAR NO.22 OF 2015 DATED 17 .12.2015 AND SUBMITTED THAT DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT O F MADRAS IS PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT AND THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT HAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER SAME AND THEREFOR E, HE SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS NOT SQUARELY COVERED IN FAV OR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS BELATED PAYM ENT OF 11 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA . THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE HON'BLE HIG H COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SECUR ITY & INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD., IN TCA NO.585 & 586 O F 2015 DATED 24.07.2015 HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND HE LD THAT BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI, AFTER DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED IN RELEVANT ACT, BUT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THIS LEGAL POSITION HAS BEEN REITERATED BY SEVERAL HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE HO NBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.ESSAE TERAO KA PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT (246 CTR 286) AND THE HONBLE R AJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BI KANER & JAIPUR (2014) 363 ITR 70 AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIPSO FABRIKS LTD. (350 ITR 327). FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. (2017) 250 TAXMANN 16 HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WHILE DISMISSING SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AND HELD THAT AMOUNT CLAIM ED ON PAYMENT OF PF & ESI HAVING BEEN DEPOSITED ON OR BEF ORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURNS, SAME COULD NOT BE DISALL OWED U/S.43B 12 ITA NO. 1882/CHNY/2018 OR U/S.36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. INSOFAR AS CIRCULAR NO.22/2015 DATED 17.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, WE FIND THAT I T HAS CLARIFIED ALLOWABIITY OF EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO FUNDS FOR WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN TERMS OF SECTION 43B(B ) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, NOT RELEVANT FOR CONSIDERING EMPLOYE ES CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUNDS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DIS ALLOWING BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & E SI U/S.36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS, HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO U PHOLD FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND TAKEN BY TH E REVENUE. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V.DURGA RAO) ( G.MANJUNATHA ) $ & / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ /CHENNAI, ) /DATED 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 DS +, -, /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. . () /CIT(A) 4. . /CIT 5. , 2 /DR 6. /GF .