TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account of payments made qua the con- tribution to employees' provident fund after the due date prescribed under the said Act but before the due date of filing of the return of income ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal is justified in holding that the amendment which were made by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from April 1, 2004, vide which the second proviso to section 43B stands omitted, was not curative and hence not retrospective in operation relying upon only on the judgment of the hon'ble High Court of Madras and ignoring all other law on the same ?" 2. The main question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether omission (deletion) of the second proviso ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the date fixed for filing of return, the amount should be permitted to be deducted. 5. On behalf of the assessee, it is urged that the deletion of the second proviso is curative in nature and must be given retrospective effect. How- ever, according to the Revenue, the omission of the second proviso by which relief is given to the assessee is effective only from April 1, 2004 and will not apply to the present case since the present case relates to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. It is not disputed that in case the deletion of the second proviso is not held to be retrospective then the assessee would not be entitled to deduction of the amount paid as con- tribution to the employees' provident fund since the payment was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, cess or fee is paid before the date of filing of the return under the Income-tax Act (due date), the assessee(s) then would be entitled to deduction. However, this relaxation/incentive was restricted only to tax, duty, cess and fee. It did not apply to contributions to labour welfare funds. The reason appears to be that the employer(s) should not sit on the collected contributions and deprive the workmen of the rightful benefits under social welfare legislations by delaying payment of contributions to the welfare funds. However, as stated above, the second proviso resulted in implementation problems, which have been mentioned hereinabove, and which resulted in the enactment of the Finance Act, 2003, deleting the second proviso and bringi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Allied Motors P. Ltd. [1997] 224 ITR 677. However, the assessee contended that even though the first proviso came to be inserted with effect from April 1, 1988, it was entitled to the benefit of that proviso because it operated retrospectively from April 1, 1984, when section 43B stood inserted. This is how the question of retrospectivity arose in Allied Motors P. Ltd. [1997] 224 ITR 677. This court, in Allied Motors P. Ltd. [1997] 224 ITR 677 held that when a proviso is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and which proviso is required to be read into the section to give the sec- tion a reasonable interpretation, it could be read as retrospe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deduction for all times. In view of the second proviso, which stood on the statute book at the relevant time, each of such assessee(s) would not be entitled to deduction under section 43B of the Act for all times. They would lose the benefit of deduction even in the year of account in which they pay the contributions to the welfare funds, whereas a defaulter, who fails to pay the contribution to the welfare fund right up to April 1, 2004, and who pays the contribution after April 1, 2004, would get the benefit of deduction under section 43B of the Act. In our view, therefore, the Finance Act, 2003, to the extent indicated above, should be read as retrospective. It would, therefore, operate from April 1, 1988, when the first proviso was int....