9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT KOLKATA ] has elaborately dealt with this issue in light of the settled judicial precedence holding that no disallowance was called for u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act under the given facts and circumstances. - Decided in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 598/Kol/2021 I.T.A. No. 605/Kol/2021 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2022 - Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member And Sri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member) None appeared on behalf of the Assessee Sh. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [in short ld. CIT(A) ] dated 06.10.2021 27.10.2021. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESI. 4.1. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the said disallowance referring to certain judicial precedence and also holding that the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 Explanation- 2 to Clause- va of Section 36(1) as retrospective in nature. 5. Ld. D/R vehemently argued in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records and carefully gone through the documents filed before us. In the case of the assessee namely Om Prakash Singh the issue under challenge is disallowance of employee s contribution at ₹ 10,97,411/- and employer s contribution at ₹ 6,48,227/- for alleged delay in deposit of PF ESI. In the case of anot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iraj D Shah takes effect from 1st April, 2021 i.e AY 2021-22 and subsequent assessment year and if the remittance of PF/ESI Employees Contribution is not made within the time prescribed by the PF/ESI Act then the remittance cannot be allowed as a deduction which is prospective in operation. Whereas according to Ld. CIT(A), the amendment brought in is clarificatory in nature so, retrospective in operation. So we have to adjudicate this issue whether the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective or retrospective in operation. We note that before this amendment has been inserted by Finance Bill, 2021, the Hon ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Vijayshree Ltd. Ltd.(supra), M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd.(su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be looked into for ascertaining whether the amendment should be retrospective or not. In Vatika Township Ltd. (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the notes on clauses appended to the Finance Bill will throw light as to the legislative intent; because it has to be borne in mind that Parliament/legislature is aware of three concepts before an amendment is brought in, which can be discerned from reading of the Notes on Clauses to the Bill which are (i) prospective amendment with effect from a fixed date; (ii) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and (iii) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature. So when we adjudicate whether the view of Ld CIT(A) that the explanation 2 brought in by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s Coal India Ltd.(supra), M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd. (supra), we set aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of deduction in respect of employees contribution shares towards ESI, PF, by the assessee before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Therefore the appeal of assessee succeeds and so, it is allowed in favor of assessee. 7. From perusal of the above finding of this Tribunal, we find that the same is squarely appreciable on the issue raised in the captioned appeals and we, therefore, respectfully following the same, decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Thus, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and disallowances made by the AO at ₹ 10,97,411/- and ₹ 6, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
