TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for short 'EPF Act', and the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for short 'ESI Act', though remitted late and beyond the due dates prescribed under the said statutes. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under Sec. 143(1) of the Act by order dt. 29/8/2008 disallowing the deduction of Rs. 22,91,791/- on the premise that the remittance was delayed and beyond the period prescribed under the aforesaid statutes. Petitioner called in question the said order invoking Sec. 264 of the Act by way of Revision before the respondent on the premise that Rs. 20,76,915/- being the employees' contribution under the EPF Act and ESI Act was remitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Apex Court in ALOM Extrusions case (supra), being in relation to whether deletion of the 2nd proviso to Sec.43B(b) of the Act by Finance Act 2003, was prospective from 1/4/ 2004 or retroactive from 1/4/1998, was . inapplicable to the claim of the petitioner and accordingly by order dt. 10/12/2010 -Annex. G, rejected the revision petition. Hence this writ petition. 2. Although no objections are filed to the petition, nevertheless learned counsel for the respondent -Revenue seeks to sustain the order impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pointing to Sec. 2(24)(x); Sec. 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B of the Act, submits that in similar circumstances, a Divi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., while the said payments were effected by the assessee before the due date for filing returns of income under Sec. 139(1) of the Act, as extended upto 30/11/2006?" 5. Facts not being in dispute, petitioner remitted Rs. 20,76,915/- from out of Rs. 22,91,791/- during the financial year ending 31/3/2006 and the balance, well before the extended date i.e., 30/11/2006 for filing of return of income under Sec. 139(1) of the Act (though details of the dates of remittances and the due dates are furnished in Annex. B disclosing the number of days delay, as also the dates when there was no delay), coupled with the non-obstante clause in Sec. 43B of the Act, and the words "due date" in the proviso to Sub-sec. (b) thereto, read with the word 'd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Sec. 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of provident fund or other contribution referred to in clause (b) are paid within the due date under the respective statutory enactments by the assessee,. was not accepted as tenable in law. 7. It is no doubt true that in ALOM Extrusions case, the question that fell for consideration by the Apex Court was, whether the omission (deletion) of the second proviso to Sec. 43B of the Act by Finance Act 2003 operated w.e.f. 1/4/2004 or retrospectively w.ef 1/4/1988? In order to answer the said question, the Apex Court felt the need to understand the scheme of the Act as it existed prior to 1/4/1984 and as it stood after 1/4/1984 and accordingly examined the definition of the....