9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADIT, Centralized Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru vide orders dated 21.02.2020 & 12.01.2020 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the 'Act'). 2. The only common issue in these two appeals of assessee for assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 is as regards to the disallowance of Employees' contribution to PF & ESI not credited before the due date of payment under respective Acts. For this, the assessee has raised various argumentative grounds running into 13 pages, but the only issue is as noted above. Hence, we need not to reproduce or adjudicate each and every ground. 3. Brief facts are that the Employees' contribution payment was made within the due date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2021, wherein it was held as follows: "6.5 In view of the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. The law passed today cannot be applied to the events of the past. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if somebody does something today, he do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. According to Hon'ble Apex court every human being is enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g clear intention of the legislature. It can be seen from the same notes that few other amendments in the Income Tax Act were made by the same Finance Act specifically making those amendments retrospectively. For example, clause 40 seeks to amend S.92F. Clause iii (a) of S.92F is amended "so as to clarify that the activities mentioned in the said clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract." This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 01.04.2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses show that the legislature is fully aware of 3 concepts: (i) prospective amendment with effect from a fixed date; (ii) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve. For example, explanation to Section 158BB is stated to be clarificatory in nature. Likewise, it is mentioned that amendments in Section 145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would be prospective i.e. it will take effect from 1st June, 2002. (f) Finance Act, 2003, again makes the position clear that surcharge in respect of block assessment of undisclosed income was made prospective. Such a stipulation is contained in second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 2 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any tax without the authority of law and such law has to be unambiguous and should prescribe the liability to pay taxes in clear terms. In present case before us, as noted by CIT(A) that their exists divergent judgements of various High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala), 2. CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala). The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para 7.4 of his order, which reads as under: 7.4 While rendering above decisions the Hon'ble High Courts had the occasion to examine and distinguish a catena of judgements w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. As noted by Hon'ble Supreme Court an amendment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove hardship only of the assessee and not of the Department. Imposing of a retrospective levy on the assessee would be caused undue hardship and for that reason Parliament specifically chose to make the proviso affective from a particular date. In the present case also, the amendment brought out by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e. for and from assessment year 2021-22 of Explanation-2 to s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and not retrospectively. 6.9 Thus, from the above, it is clear that the amendment brought in the statute i.e., by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act amended by insert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
