Judgment :- K. K. USHA, J. : Reference is at the instance of the assessee. It arises from the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA 799/Coch/88. Relevant assessment year is 1985-86. Following are the questions referred for the opinion of this Court : "1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deductions under s. 43B of the IT Act in respect of contributions made by the assessee as employer towards Provident Fund ? 2. While relying on the proviso to s. 43B to disallow the assessee's claim for deduction of the contributions made by it towards Provident Fund and in the light of the definition of "due date" the explanation below cl. (va) of sub-s. (1) of s. 36, was the Tribunal right in law and on facts in construing the words due date to mean the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration ?"* 2. While completing the assessment, AO disallowed the payment made by the assessee towards employees' voluntary contribution, employees' contribution, employers' contribution and K. P. E. Administrative charges under s. 43B of the Act. On appeal by the assessee CIT(A) took the view that the amount was due to be paid only on 15th April, 1985 and since it was paid on that day, s. 43B of the Act has no application in the case. On second appeal by the Revenue, Tribunal did not agree fully with the CIT(A). Tribunal took the view that provision for contribution towards provident fund will not come under s. 43B(a), but only under s. 43B(b) of the Act. It also found that since the amount became due only on 15th April, 1985 and it was also paid on that date, assessee is not entitled to the benefit of deduction as far as employers' contribution is concerned. Employees' contribution amounting to Rs. 80, 853, employees voluntary contribution amounting to Rs. 3, 462 and KPE administrative charges and DLI, it was held, would not come within the purview of s. 43B of the Act. Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to get deduction in respect of the above items, since the assessee has paid the same before the due date of filing of return provided under s. 139(1) of the Act. Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee is entitled to get deduction in respect of the above items, since the assessee has paid the same before the due date of filing of return provided under s. 139(1) of the Act. But, as far as the claim for deduction in respect of employers' contribution coming to Rs. 80, 853 is concerned, Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee. 3. The relevant portion of s. 43B reads as follows : "43B. Certain deductions to be only on actual payments : Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) 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... shall be allowed (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred by the assessee accordingly to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) only in computing the income referred in s. 28 of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by him..." 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it is true that employers' contribution was paid only on 15th April, 1985, since that was the due date as per the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund Act and Rules thereunder. But, since the amount was due for the financial year ending 31st March, 1985, it is contended that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the above amount in its assessment for the financial year ending 31st March, 1985. 5. We find that the contention raised by the assessee is not liable to be accepted in view of the specific provisions contained under s. 43B. The sum payable under cl. (b) of s. 43B can be allowed only in computing the income of that previous year in which such sum was actually paid by him. It is the year of payment that is relevant, not the year for which the contribution was payable. Even though employer's contribution was due for the period ending 31st March, 1985, admittedly, it was actually paid on 15th April, 1985. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim deduction in asst. yr. 1985-86 in view of the provisions contained under s. 43B. 6. It is the year of payment that is relevant, not the year for which the contribution was payable. Even though employer's contribution was due for the period ending 31st March, 1985, admittedly, it was actually paid on 15th April, 1985. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim deduction in asst. yr. 1985-86 in view of the provisions contained under s. 43B. 6. As far as second question raised by the assessee is concerned, we find that during the relevant period, second proviso to s. 43B was not available in the statute and, therefore, there is no necessity to consider the second proviso or Explanation below cl. (v-a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 36. In the light of the above discussion, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We decline to answer question No. 2.