My PF due date fell on Independence Day and I remitted the next working day. Checkmate says nothing about that. Can I still save the deduction?
No, not for a period after January 2016 and not where the remittance channel was internet banking. The five-day grace period under the EPF Manual of Accounting Procedure was withdrawn by the EPFO circular of 8 January 2016 with effect from the February 2016 remittance, and section 10 of the General Clauses Act does not help because the fund's designated internet banking account is open 24x7, so the recipient office cannot be said to have been closed on the holiday.
Decided by the ITAT (Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member (Pune "C" Bench)) on 2023-08-08, reported as ITA No. 699/PUN/2021; Assessment Year 2017-18; date of conclusive hearing 03.08.2023. It bears on section 36(1)(va), section 2(24)(x), section 43B, section 143(1), section General Clauses Act 1897 s.10 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
Checkmate Services decided that the employees' contribution must reach the fund by the due date under the welfare enactment, but it expressly left the grace period and the holiday problem alone (see its para 7, which merely records the withdrawal of the grace period). This order is the first careful working out of what is left. Two things survive it. First, for contributions falling due up to and including December 2015 the five-day grace period was a real part of the due date and a payment inside it is not late. Second, the Tribunal expressly preserved Whirlpool of India and the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia for cases of manual or physical remittance where the receiving office was in fact closed — it held only that those principles cannot rescue an electronic remittance. So the argument is not dead; it is confined to facts where the assessee can show the payment could not physically be made. Note also that the Tribunal admitted the point as an additional ground at the second appellate stage because the date of remittance was already on record in clause 20(b) of Form 3CD.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, a Pune business process operation, was assessed for AY 2017-18 through the National e-Assessment Centre with a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 80,51,30,298. Separately, the CPC had disallowed its claim under section 36(1)(va) for a remittance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF. The obligation to remit fell due on 15 August 2016. That day was a public holiday, and the assessee remitted on 16 August 2016, one day later. Before the Tribunal the assessee sought admission of an additional ground (ground No. 15) challenging the disallowance, arguing two things: that the remittance was within the five-day grace period allowed to employers, and that because the fund office was closed on the public holiday, section 10 of the General Clauses Act 1897 made remittance on the next working day sufficient compliance. It relied on the coordinate bench decisions in Integrity Verification Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No.1843/Mum/2021) and Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. JCIT [2008] 114 TTJ 211 (Del.). The Departmental Representative objected to admission on the footing that the ground was not a pure question of law, and on the merits relied on Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd v CIT, 448 ITR 518.
The additional ground was admitted but dismissed. It was admitted because it raised a pure legal question needing no fresh enquiry, the date of remittance having been brought on record at clause 20(b) of the Form No. 3CD tax audit report which was before both authorities below (para 8). On the merits, the grace-period plea failed because the five-day grace period, allowed only in view of the earlier practice of manual computation of wages, was withdrawn by the EPFO circular dated 08.01.2016 with effect from February 2016, and the contribution here fell due on 15 August 2016, after that withdrawal (paras 11.2 to 11.4). The General Clauses Act plea failed because the recipient fund was, for the limited purpose of receiving the contribution, represented by a designated internet banking account enabled around the clock, so the office could not be said to be closed (para 11.6). The appeal was partly allowed on the transfer pricing ground alone.
The Tribunal accepted that the subject matter was no longer res integra after Checkmate Services read with Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va), but chose to test the assessee's two specific contentions anyway (para 11). It set out the statutory obligation to remit within fifteen days of the close of every month under the EPF Act 1952 and the three schemes, then recorded that the five-day grace period was an administrative concession granted because wages were then computed manually, and that it was withdrawn by the EPFO with effect from February 2016 (paras 11.1 to 11.3). Since the contribution in question fell due in August 2016, the concession had already gone (para 11.4). On the General Clauses Act, the Tribunal distinguished Integrity Verification Services as pre-Checkmate and therefore out of context, and distinguished Whirlpool of India as a case about manual or physical remittance by cheque or draft where the receiving office was closed for a public holiday. It said in terms that Whirlpool and section 10 of the General Clauses Act rest on lex non cogit ad impossibilia and "still hold good even today in a similar circumstances", but that they did not fit these facts, because remittance was to be made electronically to an account available every day of the year (paras 11.5 and 11.6).
This online/internet banking facility of remittee / respective fund was enabled for 24x7 and 365/366 days a year to receive all electronic remittances.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, not for a period after January 2016 and not where the remittance channel was internet banking. The five-day grace period under the EPF Manual of Accounting Procedure was withdrawn by the EPFO circular of 8 January 2016 with effect from the February 2016 remittance, and section 10 of the General Clauses Act does not help because the fund's designated internet banking account is open 24x7, so the recipient office cannot be said to have been closed on the holiday. This was decided by the ITAT (Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member (Pune "C" Bench)) and bears on section 36(1)(va), section 2(24)(x), section 43B, section 143(1), section General Clauses Act 1897 s.10 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 699/PUN/2021; Assessment Year 2017-18; date of conclusive hearing 03.08.2023. Checkmate Services decided that the employees' contribution must reach the fund by the due date under the welfare enactment, but it expressly left the grace period and the holiday problem alone (see its para 7, which merely records the withdrawal of the grace period). This order is the first careful working out of what is left. Two things survive it. First, for contributions falling due up to and including December 2015 the five-day grace period was a real part of the due date and a payment inside it is not late. Second, the Tribunal expressly preserved Whirlpool of India and the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia for cases of manual or physical remittance where the receiving office was in fact closed — it held only that those principles cannot rescue an electronic remittance. So the argument is not dead; it is confined to facts where the assessee can show the payment could not physically be made. Note also that the Tribunal admitted the point as an additional ground at the second appellate stage because the date of remittance was already on record in clause 20(b) of Form 3CD. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Identify the wage month to which the contribution relates, not the month in which it was paid. The five-day grace period is available only for contributions for the month of December 2015 and earlier; for contributions for January 2016 onwards — the first of which fell due on 15 February 2016 — it is gone. Checkmate Services records at its para 7 that the circular of 08.01.2016 was 'made applicable to contributions for January 2016 onwards', and this Tribunal says the same thing at para 11.3.
The assessee, a Pune business process operation, was assessed for AY 2017-18 through the National e-Assessment Centre with a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs 80,51,30,298. Separately, the CPC had disallowed its claim under section 36(1)(va) for a remittance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF. The obligation to remit fell due on 15 August 2016. That day was a public holiday, and the assessee remitted on 16 August 2016, one day later. Before the Tribunal the assessee sought admission of an additional ground (ground No. 15) challenging the disallowance, arguing two things: that the remittance was within the five-day grace period allowed to employers, and that because the fund office was closed on the public holiday, section 10 of the General Clauses Act 1897 made remittance on the next working day sufficient compliance. It relied on the coordinate bench decisions in Integrity Verification Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No.1843/Mum/2021) and Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. JCIT [2008] 114 TTJ 211 (Del.). The Departmental Representative objected to admission on the footing that the ground was not a pure question of law, and on the merits relied on Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd v CIT, 448 ITR 518. The matter was decided on 2023-08-08 by the ITAT (Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member (Pune "C" Bench)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The additional ground was admitted but dismissed. It was admitted because it raised a pure legal question needing no fresh enquiry, the date of remittance having been brought on record at clause 20(b) of the Form No. 3CD tax audit report which was before both authorities below (para 8). On the merits, the grace-period plea failed because the five-day grace period, allowed only in view of the earlier practice of manual computation of wages, was withdrawn by the EPFO circular dated 08.01.2016 with effect from February 2016, and the contribution here fell due on 15 August 2016, after that withdrawal (paras 11.2 to 11.4). The General Clauses Act plea failed because the recipient fund was, for the limited purpose of receiving the contribution, represented by a designated internet banking account enabled around the clock, so the office could not be said to be closed (para 11.6). The appeal was partly allowed on the transfer pricing ground alone.
The Tribunal accepted that the subject matter was no longer res integra after Checkmate Services read with Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va), but chose to test the assessee's two specific contentions anyway (para 11). It set out the statutory obligation to remit within fifteen days of the close of every month under the EPF Act 1952 and the three schemes, then recorded that the five-day grace period was an administrative concession granted because wages were then computed manually, and that it was withdrawn by the EPFO with effect from February 2016 (paras 11.1 to 11.3). Since the contribution in question fell due in August 2016, the concession had already gone (para 11.4). On the General Clauses Act, the Tribunal distinguished Integrity Verification Services as pre-Checkmate and therefore out of context, and distinguished Whirlpool of India as a case about manual or physical remittance by cheque or draft where the receiving office was closed for a public holiday. It said in terms that Whirlpool and section 10 of the General Clauses Act rest on lex non cogit ad impossibilia and "still hold good even today in a similar circumstances", but that they did not fit these facts, because remittance was to be made electronically to an account available every day of the year (paras 11.5 and 11.6). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "This online/internet banking facility of remittee / respective fund was enabled for 24x7 and 365/366 days a year to receive all electronic remittances." The decision followed or applied Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd v CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) — applied; National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) — applied on admission of an additional ground; Whirlpool of India Ltd. v JCIT [2008] 114 TTJ 211 (Del.) — distinguished, but expressly preserved for manual or physical remittance; Integrity Verification Services Pvt. Ltd. v ITO (ITA No.1843/Mum/2021) — distinguished as pre-Checkmate.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2023-08-08 and is reported as ITA No. 699/PUN/2021; Assessment Year 2017-18; date of conclusive hearing 03.08.2023. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 36(1)(va), section 2(24)(x), section 43B, section 143(1), section General Clauses Act 1897 s.10, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The additional ground was admitted but dismissed. It was admitted because it raised a pure legal question needing no fresh enquiry, the date of remittance having been brought on record at clause 20(b) of the Form No. 3CD tax audit report which was before both authorities below (para 8). On the merits, the grace-period plea failed because the five-day grace period, allowed only in view of the earlier practice of manual computation of wages, was withdrawn by the EPFO circular dated 08.01.2016 with effect from February 2016, and the contribution here fell due on 15 August 2016, after that withdrawal (paras 11.2 to 11.4). The General Clauses Act plea failed because the recipient fund was, for the limited purpose of receiving the contribution, represented by a designated internet banking account enabled around the clock, so the office could not be said to be closed (para 11.6). The appeal was partly allowed on the transfer pricing ground alone. It arises in Deductions & Disallowances and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 36(1)(va), section 2(24)(x), section 43B, section 143(1), section General Clauses Act 1897 s.10 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member (Pune "C" Bench). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Establish how the remittance was actually made. If it was by internet banking or the EPFO/ESIC portal, do not run the General Clauses Act argument — this order kills it on the ground that the channel is open every day of the year. If the remittance was by cheque, draft or physical challan and the receiving office was closed, plead lex non cogit ad impossibilia and Whirlpool of India, and put on record proof that the office was in fact shut on the due date. If the point was never taken below, raise it as an additional ground before the Tribunal and point to clause 20(b) of the Form 3CD already on file — that is the basis on which admission was allowed here. Obtain and read the EPFO circular of 8 January 2016 withdrawing the grace period before arguing either way; the Supreme Court and this Tribunal cite it by different numbers.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator returns nothing. A name search returns 125 documents; the Bombay High Court entries against the National Faceless Assessment Centre dated 6 July 2026 and 20 July 2026 were checked and are procedural directions in Writ Petition No. 5713 of 2022, a batch revived after a Supreme Court order of 10 April 2026, with no reference to this order, to section 36(1)(va) or to the EPF grace period. The Supreme Court daily order of 11 February 2019 and the Bombay High Court judgments of 2018 all predate this order. Nothing was found applying or doubting the holding that the five-day grace period under the EPF Manual of Accounting Procedure was withdrawn by the EPFO circular of 8 January 2016 with effect from the February 2016 remittance. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Tribunal cites the circular withdrawing the grace period as "circular No. 608/2016 dt. 08/01/2016"; the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services at its para 7 cites the same withdrawal as circular bearing No. WSU/9(1)(2013)/Settlement/35631 dated 08.01.2016. The date is common to both, the number is not, and I could not open the circular itself to settle which reference is right. The order refers throughout to "clause 10 of General clauses Act, 1897", where the provision is section 10. I read paragraphs 6 to 11.6 and the pronouncement line verbatim and re-fetched the key sentence to confirm it; I did not read the transfer-pricing portion of the order in full, and the summary of that portion in the first retrieval (exclusion of MPS Ltd. as a comparable) is not something I verified word for word. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The additional ground was admitted but dismissed. It was admitted because it raised a pure legal question needing no fresh enquiry, the date of remittance having been brought on record at clause 20(b) of the Form No. 3CD tax audit report which was before both authorities below (para 8). On the merits, the grace-period plea failed because the five-day grace period, allowed only in view of the earlier practice of manual computation of wages, was withdrawn by the EPFO circular dated 08.01.2016 with effect from February 2016, and the contribution here fell due on 15 August 2016, after that withdrawal (paras 11.2 to 11.4). The General Clauses Act plea failed because the recipient fund was, for the limited purpose of receiving the contribution, represented by a designated internet banking account enabled around the clock, so the office could not be said to be closed (para 11.6). The appeal was partly allowed on the transfer pricing ground alone.
TaxSphere, “BNY Mellon International Operations (India) P Ltd v National e-Assessment Centre”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/bny-mellon-36-1-va-grace-period-and-general-clauses-act/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My Tribunal order on employees' contributions became final before Checkmate and no appeal was filed. The department now wants it recalled under section 254(2). Is finality any answer?
The CPC disallowed my late PF under section 143(1)(a) purely because my auditor filled in clause 20(b) of Form 3CD. Is the auditor's entry enough to found the adjustment?
You deposited employees' PF late but before filing the return. Is the deduction saved?
CPC disallowed my late-deposited PF and ESI under 143(1)(a). Was a summary adjustment even open to them?
