My auditor has reported in Form 3CD that some months' PF and ESI were deposited a few days late, and the department has disallowed the employees' share even though I paid every rupee before I filed my return. I thought section 43B let me pay by the return due date. Can they do this, and do I get the deduction in the year I paid?
They can, and you do not. The employee's share deducted from wages is your income under section 2(24)(x) the moment you receive it, and section 36(1)(va) gives it back as a deduction only if you credit it to the employee's account in the fund on or before the due date under the relevant labour law — Explanation 1 makes that date the one fixed by "any Act, rule, order or notification issued thereunder or under any standing order, award, contract of service or otherwise". The pay-by-the-return-due-date relief in the first proviso to section 43B belongs to section 43B(b), which covers the employer's own contribution; there is no equivalent proviso in section 36(1)(va). Checkmate Services (Supreme Court, 12 October 2022) settled this, holding that the non obstante clause in section 43B does not absolve you of the obligation to deposit the employee's share by the due date, and that the contrary High Court decisions do not lay down the correct law. A day's delay costs the deduction outright — nothing in the Act revives it in the year of payment — and because clause 20(b) of Form 3CD makes you report the due date and the actual date, the disallowance can be and routinely is made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) on processing alone, without scrutiny.
Two different sums leave an employer's bank account for the same provident fund every month, and the Act treats them in opposite ways. The employer's own contribution is the employer's expense. The employee's contribution is not: it is money deducted from the employee's wages, and the moment the employer receives or deducts it, section 2(24)(x) deems it to be the employer's income — "any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees". That sub-clause was inserted by the Finance Act 1987 with effect from 1 April 1988. Having brought the money into income, the Act gives it back as a deduction through section 36(1)(va), and only on one condition: the sum is allowed "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".
The due date is not a tax date. Explanation 1 to the clause — the original Explanation, renumbered in 2021 — says: "For the purposes of this clause, 'due date' means 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 thereunder or under any standing order, award, contract of service or otherwise". So you read the labour statute, the scheme or the regulation, and if none of those fixes it, the standing order, award or contract of service. Nothing in the Income-tax Act moves that date, and nothing in the Income-tax Act extends it.
This is where section 43B is usually brought in, and why it does not work. Section 43B(b) covers "any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees" — the employer's own share, and only that. Its first proviso rescues a late payment: nothing in the section applies to a sum "which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return". (Since 1 April 2024 the proviso carries the words "except the provisions of clause (h)", the micro and small enterprise carve-out, which is a separate subject.) Section 36(1)(va) has no proviso of that kind. The pay-before-you-file relief exists in one place in the Act, and the employee's share is not in it.
The Supreme Court settled the point in *Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax-1*, Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016, decided on 12 October 2022 by U.U. Lalit CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia JJ, on appeal from the Gujarat High Court. The Court put the distinction this way at paragraph 53: "The distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date." At paragraph 54 it explained what follows: employees' contributions "are not part of the assessee employer's income, nor are they heads of deduction per se in the form of statutory pay out. They are others' income, monies, only deemed to be income, with the object of ensuring that they are paid within the due date specified in the particular law"; "it is an essential condition for the deduction that such amounts are deposited on or before the due date"; and "the non-obstante clause under Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction". The appeals were dismissed.
*Checkmate* did not overrule *Alom Extrusions*, and *Alom Extrusions* is still the answer for the employer's own share. What the Court said at paragraph 45 was narrower: "A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers' contribution and employees' contribution, too went unnoticed." The casualty was the High Court line that had carried *Alom Extrusions* across to the employee's share. At paragraph 51 the Court named the decisions the assessees had relied on — *Aimil* (Delhi), *Sabari Enterprises* (Karnataka), *Pamwi Tissues* (Bombay), *Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh* (Rajasthan) and *Nipso Polyfabriks* (Himachal Pradesh) — and at paragraph 55 held that "The decisions of the other High Courts, holding to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law." So the employer's share still gets the benefit of the first proviso to section 43B on the footing settled in *Allied Motors* and *Alom Extrusions*; the employee's share never did.
The Finance Act 2021 made the position explicit in the text. In section 36(1)(va) the existing Explanation was renumbered as Explanation 1 and a new one inserted: "Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining the 'due date' under this clause;". In section 43B, after Explanation 4, came: "Explanation 5.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies." Both now appear on the department's own current text of the two sections. On timing there is no room for argument: the Supreme Court in *Checkmate* reproduces Explanation 2 with the footnote "Explanation 2 inserted by Act No. 13 of 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021", and records at paragraph 5 that "by Finance Act, 2021 the following Explanation 5 was added, w.e.f. 01.04.2021". Section 1(2)(a) of that Act says the same thing from the other end — "sections 2 to 88 shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 2021". So both Explanations run from 1 April 2021, which is assessment year 2021-22.
Whether those Explanations are clarificatory and so reach back before assessment year 2021-22 was fought hard between 2021 and 2022: the language is declaratory ("for the removal of doubts", "shall be deemed never to have been applied"), while the commencement is dated. *Checkmate* did not decide it. The judgment sets both Explanations out as part of the statutory setting and then decides the appeals on the provisions as they stood before the amendment. That is the point most often missed. For a year before assessment year 2021-22 it does not matter whether Explanation 2 is retrospective, because *Checkmate* reached the same result without it. An appeal for assessment year 2018-19 that argues only "the Explanation is prospective" is arguing about a provision the Revenue does not need. The prospectivity argument is not wrong; it is simply beside the point on the employees' share.
In practice the due date for provident fund is the fifteenth. Paragraph 38 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 1952, as reproduced by the Ahmedabad Tribunal in *Safal Hospitality and Maintenance v DCIT* (3 January 2024), requires that the employer "shall within fifteen days of the close of every month pay the same to the Fund by separate Bank drafts or cheques on account of contributions and administrative charge". The press release published by EPFO recording its circular of 8 January 2016 states that "the concession of grace period of 5 days available to the employers for depositing the contribution & other dues is withdrawn", and that "This shall apply from February, 2016 for depositing contributions for the month of January, 2016 that is payable in the month of February, 2016"; the model email for employers reproduced in the same document spells it out — "the dues for the month of Jan, 2016 are to be paid by 15th Feb. 2016". There is therefore no grace period for any month from January 2016 onwards, and an argument built on the five-day concession in the EPF Manual of Accounting Procedure is an argument about a concession that no longer exists. The Pune Bench so held in *BNY Mellon International Operations (India)* on 8 August 2023, rejecting both the grace period and an attempt to use the General Clauses Act where the remittance channel was internet banking. For ESI, the deposit date is fixed by the regulations made under the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948 and not by any tax provision; take it from the regulation in force for the month you are dealing with, and see `gaps` — I could not open ESIC's own text of that regulation to state its number or the date it was last changed.
One day matters, and the loss is permanent. The condition in clause (va) is "on or before the due date"; there is no tolerance band, no de minimis and no power in an Assessing Officer to condone. Nor is the deduction merely deferred to the year of actual payment. Section 36(1)(va) contains no provision allowing it later, and Explanation 5 shuts the section 43B door by deeming that section never to have applied to the sum at all. The money stays in income under section 2(24)(x) for the year in which it was received from the employee, and paying it in a later year does not produce a deduction in that later year either. Paying late but before the section 139(1) return date — the fact pattern in almost every one of these disputes — buys nothing on the employee's share. It is exactly what saves the employer's share, and that asymmetry is the whole of the law here.
That is why the tax audit report is where these cases begin. Clause 20(b) of Form No. 3CD requires the auditor to give, fund by fund, the "Nature of fund", the "Sum received from employees", the "Due date for payment", "The actual amount paid" and "The actual date of payment to the concerned authorities". The auditor's own table therefore proves the delay. Section 143(1)(a)(iv) then permits an adjustment while processing the return for "disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return" — and the words "or increase in income" were inserted by the Finance Act 2021 with effect from 1 April 2021. That insertion is what closes the argument, and it is worth being exact about why. Before 1 April 2021 the clause spoke only of "disallowance of expenditure", and the answer run against processing adjustments was that an employee's contribution deemed to be income by section 2(24)(x) is not an expenditure at all, so clause (iv) had nothing to bite on. That was the reasoning of the Mumbai Tribunal in *Kalpesh Synthetics*. From assessment year 2021-22 the clause reaches an increase in income as well, and the argument is gone. The safeguards that remain are procedural: the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) requires that "no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode", and the second gives you thirty days, after which the adjustment is made anyway if you do not reply. So yes — the Centralised Processing Centre can and does disallow on processing alone, without any scrutiny assessment. For the older processing years one narrow line still works. In *Raj Kumar Bothra v DCIT* (TAXC No. 56 of 2025, decided 8 May 2025) the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside a section 143(1)(a) disallowance for assessment year 2020-21 made by an intimation dated 16 December 2021, on the footing that the issue was genuinely debatable on that date with High Courts divided and the matter pending in the Supreme Court, and with liberty to the Revenue to proceed in accordance with law. Delhi Benches of the Tribunal have followed it. That relief is procedural and belongs to intimations issued before 12 October 2022. It is not an answer on the merits, and it is not available for a delay in a year processed after *Checkmate*.
This is the most commonly disallowed item in Indian tax audit, and it is disallowed by a computer. Clause 20(b) of Form 3CD hands the department a dated admission of the delay in your own auditor's hand, and section 143(1)(a)(iv) lets the Centralised Processing Centre act on it at processing. The disallowance arrives as an intimation, not a notice; if you let the thirty days under the second proviso to section 143(1)(a) run out, it is made anyway, and you are then arguing about an addition that Checkmate has already decided against you.
It also costs real money in a way no later payment undoes. The employer's share is forgiving — pay it by the section 139(1) date and the first proviso to section 43B saves it. The employee's share is not forgiving at all, and the amount disallowed is not a timing difference that reverses next year. A single month of PF deposited on the sixteenth instead of the fifteenth is a permanent addition to income for that year.
I paid advance tax for the year but had not filed my return when the search took place. Can the department still call that income undisclosed?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
I paid the sales tax after year-end but within the time the statute allows. Can the AO disallow it?
The department accepted a High Court decision in someone else's case and never appealed it, and is now arguing the opposite against my client. Can it?
You deposited employees' PF late but before filing the return. Is the deduction saved?
I paid the PF contribution after year end but before the return due date. Is the deduction gone?
I deducted TDS during the year but paid it after 31 March, though before I filed my return — can the expense still be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia)?
The bank sanctioned a fresh loan and the outstanding interest was squared off against it. My books show no interest outstanding. Is that actual payment under section 43B?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.
