9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn u/s.143(1) - HELD THAT:- At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee as well as the ld. Senior DR agreed that the assessee can file the details of TDS before AO and the AO will accordingly allow the claim. In view of the above, we direct the AO to give opportunity to the assessee to file tax credit certificates and accordingly, consider the claim of assessee afresh. This issue of assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.: 372/CHNY/2021 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2022 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Shivam Davey, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sajit Kumar,JCIT ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Chennai- 12/10043/2020-21 dated 18.08.2021. The return of income was processed by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ) for the assessment year 2019-20 vide order dated 07.07.2020. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch means law looks forward not backward. In the case of Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., supra, the issue before Hon ble Supreme Court was the insertion of proviso to section 113 of the act by the Finance Act 2002 for charging of surcharge was under challenge. Hon ble Supreme Court noted though provision for surcharge under the Finance Acts have been in existence since 1995, the charge of surcharge with respect to block assessment years, having been created for the first time by the insertion of proviso to Section 113 of the Act, by Finance Act, 2002, it is clearly a substantive provision and is to be construed as prospective in operation. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the amendment neither purports to be merely clarificatory nor is there any material to suggest that it was intended by parliament. 6.6 The Hon ble Supreme Court finally held that the proviso to Section113 of the Act is prospective and not retrospective. For this Hon ble Supreme Court held as under:- Notes on Clauses appended to Finance Bill, 2002 while proposing insertion of proviso categorically states that this amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2002 . These become epigraphic words, when seen i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation 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 of Finance Act, 2003. This proviso reads as under: Provided further that the amount of income-tax computed in accordance with the provisions of section 113 shall be increased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union as provided in Paragraph A, B, C, D or E, as the case may be, of Part III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. CIT v. NispoPolyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 327/213 Taxman 376/30 taxmann.com 90 (HP); 4. CIT v. Alembic Glass Industries ltd. [2015] 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.); 6. CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 137 (Bom.); 7. Spectrum Consultants India (P.) Ltd. V. CIT [2013] 215 Taxman 597/34 taxmann.com 20 (Kar.); 8. CIT v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Shakari Sangh Ltd. [2013] 217 Taxman 64/35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj.) and 9. CIT v. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd. [2013] 217 Taxman 207 (Mag.)/37 taxmann.com 160 (Punj. Har.). 6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
