The employees\u2019 contribution towards provident fund and employees\u2019 State insurance were not deposited within the prescribed period under S.\u00a036(1)(va)\u00a0read with S.\u00a02(24)(x)\u00a0of the\u00a0 Act\u00a0. The AO disallowed the payments. The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the question as to whether there was a delay or not was to be decided by the AO\u00a0 and the assessee would get relief if found admissible. On appeal by revenue the Court held that\u00a0 \u00a0S. \u00a038 of the\u00a0Employees\u2019 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952\u00a0made it obligatory for the employer before paying the wages to deduct the employees\u2019 contribution along with the employer’s own contribution as fixed by the Government. The employer is further obliged to pay it within fifteen days of the close of every month\u2019s pay, i.e., such contribution and administrative charges. The reference to fifteen days of the close of the month must be in relation to the month during which the payment of wages is to be made and corresponding liability to deduct the employee’s contribution to the fund arises. The expression \u201cwithin fifteen days of the close of every month\u201d therefore, must be interpreted as having reference to the close of the month, for which, the wages were required to be paid with the corresponding duty to deduct the employees\u2019 contribution and to deposit such amount in the relevant fund. The order of the Tribunal restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer was erroneous.( AY.2011-12)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" S. 36(1)(va): Any sum received from employees – Employees\u2019 Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees\u2019 State Insurance \u2014 Delay in payment- Tribunal remanding the issue before Assessing Officer \u2013 Held to be erroneous .[S. 2(24)(X), 36(1)(Va) , Employees\u2019 Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, S. 38. ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digest"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3af","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12167"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12167\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12168,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12167\/revisions\/12168"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}