CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (Bombay High Court)

DATE: October 14, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
S. 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) & 43B: Even employees' contribution to PF etc is allowable if deposited before due date of filing ROI

Section 43B made it mandatory for the department to grant deduction in computing the income under section 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess, etc. is actually paid. However, Parliament took cognizance of the fact that the accounting year of a company did not always tally with the due dates under certain statutes and, therefore, by way of the first proviso, an incentive / relaxation was sought to be given in respect of tax, duty, cess or fee by explicitly stating that if such tax, duty, cess or fee is paid before the date of filing of the return under the Income Tax Act, the assessee would be entitled to deduction. It did not apply to contributions to labour welfare funds. The second proviso resulted in implementation problems and which led to deletion of the second proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 and bringing about uniformity in the first proviso by equating tax, duty, cess and fee with contributions to welfare funds like employees’ provident fund, superannuation. Fund and other welfare funds. The first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 was made applicable with effect from April 1, 2004 and the assessee would argue that it was curative in nature, clarificatory and, therefore, applied retrospectively from 1st April, 1988. The department argued that it was clarifactory and, therefore, applied prospectively. The Supreme Court held that Finance Act, 2003 would be applicable retrospectively and defaulter who fails to pay the contribution to the welfare fund right upto April 1, 2004 and who pays the contribution after April 1, 2004, would get the benefit of deduction under section 43B of the I.T. Act. It is held that the Finance Act, 2003 to the extent indicated above would be curative in nature and hence is retrospective. The reason being to be that the employers should not sit on the collected contributions and deprive the workmen of the rightful benefits under social welfare legislations by delaying payment of contributions to the welfare funds. We are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd 319 ITR 306 applies to employees’ contribution as well as employers’ contribution (CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd (Bom HC) followed).

One comment on “CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (Bombay High Court)
  1. it means Revenue is some kind of robot!

    it doesn’t think, depending on what is fed in the data bank so revenue is a non human being
    !modern of wonders!! Live like that revenue. it seems we can just do away with humans working there, that means large saving mr finance minister!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *