9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from the order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad dated 03/12/2010 and the substantive ground which is argued before us reads as follows:- 1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of disallowance of Rs.145572 towards employees contribution to P.F. and Rs.2111 towards E.S.I.C. aggregating to Rs.147683/- u/s.43B for minor delay in depositing the contribution to respective accounts. These dues are paid by the appellant before the due date of filing of return of income and evidence for payment of dues is filed before the Assessing Officer. 2. In respect of the above issue the Assessing Officer while passing the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de letter dated 17.08.2009 was asked to show cause why the same should not be disallowed u/s.43B of the Income tax Act. In response the assessee vide letter dated 26.08.2009 submitted as under: Regarding disallowance of Employees contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.145572/- and E.S.I.C. of Rs.2111/- u/s.43B, we would like to draw you attention to the decision of Hon.Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Cement Ltd. v/s. CIT (2007) 213 CTR 268 (SC) wherein it was held that Contribution towards PF and ESIC having been paid by the assessee within 2 to 4 days after grace period provided under s.43B but before filing the return, disallowance under s.43B was rightly deleted by the Tribunal . In view of the above citation considering minor delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared and placed reliance on the following decisions:- Sl.No(s) Decision in the case of Reported in /in ITA No . 1. CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 CTR 268 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) 3. ACIT vs. The General Coop. Bank Ltd. ITA No.815/Ahd/208 dtd.18/06/2010 4. Hitech (India) Pvt.Ltd. Others vs. Union of India (1997) 227 ITR 446 (A.P.) 5. CIT vs. M.N. Chari (2009) 310 ITR 445 (Kar.) 6. From the side of the Revenue, ld.DR Mr.Samir Tekriwal appeared and placed reliance on DCIT vs. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. reported at (2011) 139 TTJ 192 (Kol.). The Learned Departmental Representative has argued that the Respected ITAT B Bench Kolkata has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Though this amendment was made applicable with effect from April 1, 2004, the amendment was curative in nature and applied retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1988.It was clarified that when a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole. In a recent decision dated 30/03/2010 the questions before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakhani Rubber Works 326 ITR 415 were as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
