IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD
(Through Virtual Hearing)
BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY,
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MA No. 101/Hyd/2021
(In ITA No. 605/Hyd/2020)
A.Y. 2018-19
Sundar Tajmahal Hotels
Private Limited,
Hyderabad.
PAN: AAFCS 9682 N
VS. DCIT,
Circle-3(2),
Hyderabad.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas
Revenue by: Sri T. Sunil Goutam, Sr. AR
Date of hearing: 06/01/2022
Date of pronouncement: 21/01/2022
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee
seeking rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA
No. 605/Hyd/2020, dated 16/06/2021 for the AY 2018-19.
2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal in its
order dated 16/06/2021 had erroneously confirmed the order of
the Ld. AO by sustaining the disallowance made by the Ld. AO
towards expenditure incurred towards employees contribution
towards EPF and ESI on the ground that they are not remitted
to the Government Treasury within the due date of the relevant
2
Act, without considering the subsequent amendment and the
Memorandum Explaining the Provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 wherein
it is stated that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the
Act will take effect from 1/4/2021. It was therefore pleaded that the
order of the Tribunal may be recalled and rectified. The Ld. DR could
not controvert to the submission of the Ld. AR.
3. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that non-
consideration of the amendment and the Memorandum
Explaining the Provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 while passing the order
of the Tribunal dated 16/6/2021 is a mistake apparent on record.
Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal dated 16/6/2021 is hereby
recalled and rectified as under:
4. At the outset, I find the issue is settled by the Memorandum
Explaining the Provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 wherein it is stated that
amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act will take
effect from 1/4/2021. The relevant portion of the Memorandum is
extracted herein below for reference.
Rationalisation of various Provisions
“Payment by employer of employee contribution to a fund on or before due
date
Clause (24) of section 2 of the Act provides an inclusive definition of the
income. Sub-clause (x) to the said clause provide that income to include any
sum received by the assessee from his employees as contribution to any
provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the
provisions of ESI Act or any other fund for the welfare of such employees.
3
Section 36 of the Act pertains to the other deductions. Sub-section (1) of the
said section provides for various deductions allowed while computing the
income under the head ̳Profits and gains of business or profession‘.
Clause (va) of the said sub-section provides for deduction of any sum
received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions
of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) 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 provides that, for the
purposes of this clause, "due date‖ to mean the date by which the assessee
is required as an employer to credit an employee's contribution to the
employee's account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule, order or
notification issued there-under or under any standing order, award,
contract of service or otherwise.
Section 43B specifies the list of deductions that are admissible under the
Act only upon their actual payment. Employer's contribution is covered in
clause (b) of section 43B. According to it, if any sum towards employer's
contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund
or any other fund for the welfare of the employees is actually paid by the
assessee on or before the due date for furnishing the return of the income
under sub-section (1) of section 139, assessee would be entitled to
deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for
the accounting year. This provision does not cover employee contribution
referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act.
Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer‘s contribution and does
not cover employee contribution, some courts have applied the provision of
section 43B on employee contribution as well. There is a distinction
between employer contribution and employee‘s contribution towards
welfare fund. It may be noted that employee‘s contribution towards
welfare funds is a mechanism to ensure the compliance by the employers
of the labour welfare laws. Hence, it needs to be stressed that the
employer‘s contribution towards welfare funds such as ESI and PF needs
to be clearly distinguished from the employee‘s contribution towards
welfare funds. Employee‘s contribution is employee own money and the
employer deposits this contribution on behalf of the employee in fiduciary
capacity. By late deposit of employee contribution, the employers get
unjustly enriched by 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 employee‘s contributions.
Accordingly, in order to provide certainty, it is proposed to –
(i) amend clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act by
inserting another explanation to the said clause to clarify that
the provision of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never
have been applied for the purposes of determining the ―due
date‖ under this clause; and
(ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 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
4
received by the assessee from any of his employees to which
provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies.
These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will
accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and
subsequent assessment years.”
5. In the case of the assessee it is not disputed that the employee’s
contribution of Rs. 6,90,356/- for the AY 2018-19 was deducted by the
assessee and remitted in the Government Treasury within the due date
of filing the return of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the
case of the assessee relates to assessment year 2018-19 and the
amendment though clarificatory in nature has come into effect from
1/4/2021, for the relevant year under consideration in the case of the
assessee it would suffice that the employee’s contribution deducted by
the assessee are remitted in the Government Treasury within the due
date of filing of the return of income as prescribed under the Act.
Therefore, the disallowances made by the Ld. Revenue Authorities are
deserved to be deleted. Similar view was expressed by the Hyderabad
SMC Bench of the Tribunal in the case Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd vs.
Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 644/Hyd/2020, dated 15/06/2021.
Hence, I hereby direct the Ld. AO to delete the additions made in the
hands of the assessee amounting to Rs. 6,90,356/- for the AY 2018-19
towards disallowance of payment made in regard to employees’
contribution to PF & ESI fund.
5
6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is
allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21
st
January, 2021.
Sd/-
(A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 21
st
January, 2022.
OKK
Copy to:-
1) M/s. Sundar Tajmahal Hotels Pvt Ltd, 4-1-999, Abids Road,
Hyderabad – 500 001.
2) DCIT (CPC), Bangalore.
3) The CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad.
4) The Pr. CIT-3, Hyderabad.
5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad
6) Guard File