JUDGMENT
G. Sivarajan, J.
1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), for decision of this Court at the instance of the Revenue :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the clear provisions of Explanation to Clause (v) of Section 36(1) and Section 43B r/w the decision in Hitech (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 227 ITR 446 (AP) the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the belated payment to Provident Fund ?”
2. We have heard the learned standing counsel (Government of India) Taxes, appearing for the applicant and Shri K. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assesses. The standing counsel submitted that this question is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of the very same assessee in CIT v. South India Corpn. Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker). In that case it was held that in order to get the deduction, the payment of provident fund has to be made within the due date as provided in Expln, to Section 43B r/w Section 36(l)(va) of the Act.
3. In the instant case, the first appellate authority has categorically found that the payment of Rs. 1,25,050, relating to Granite Division, was paid beyond the due date and the grace period. In the light of the decision of this Court mentioned above, the assessee is not entitled to get the deduction. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.