JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by N. Kumar J.-The Revenue have preferred this appeal against order passed by Tribunal holding that even employees' contribution made by assessee on or before due date for filing return under section 139(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, would be eligible for benefit conferred under section 43B(b) of Act. substantial questions of law that is raised in this appeal are as under: "(1) Whether appellate authorities were correct in holding that in view of provisions of section 43B of Act deduction in respect of employees' contributions made to PF and ESI belatedly was allowable deduction? (2) Whether appellate authorities were correct in applying section 43B of Act which was applicable to employer's contribution and failing to apply section 36(1)(va) and section 2(24)(x) of Act under which employees' contribution would become income of assessee at end of year if same is not deposited within stipulated time?" This court had occasion to consider said question of law in case of CIT v. Spectrum Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. decided on December 9, 2013 in W. A. No. 4077 of 2013 [2014] 2 ITR-OL 622 (Karn) where, after referring to sections 29, 30 and 31 of Provident Fund Act, has held as under (page 626 of 2 ITR-OL): "A reading of aforesaid provisions makes it clear that contributions payable by employer under scheme shall be at rate of 10 per cent. of basic wages, dearness allowance. contribution payable by employee shall be equal to contribution payable by employer in respect of such employee. However, employer shall, in first instance, pay both contribution payable by himself, i.e., employer's contribution as well as employee's contribution and, thereafter, he is entitled to recover by means of deduction from employee contribution which he has paid as employee's contribution. Therefore, in law, payment of contribution by employer to fund under scheme means both employer's contribution and employee's contribution. Whether he deducts employee's contribution from salary or not, in law, he is liable to pay said amount. Therefore, section 2(24)(x) of Act makes it clear that employee's contribution which employer deducts from his salary before it is paid into fund, is treated as income of employer, and employer by contributing can get deduction. That payment must be made within due date, i.e., due date prescribed under section 139(1) of Act. Because it was causing lot of problem as discussed in judgment of apex court, on representation made by industry, subsequent amendment was carried out to mitigate difficulties caused to employer under section 43B of Act. Though such contributions are not paid within time prescribed under relevant act, if those contributions are paid before due date prescribed under section 139(1) of Act employer shall be entitled to deductions as provided under section 36(1) of Act. While extending such benefit, Parliament has not made any distinction between employee's contribution and employer's contribution. It is for simple reason, under provident fund scheme, employer has to pay both contribution and then recover from salary of employee. Therefore, in view of aforesaid judgment, we do not find any substance in this appeal. Therefore, appeal is dismissed." In that view of matter, substantial questions of law are answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. There is no merit in this appeal. appeal stands dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Magus Customers Dialog Pvt. Ltd