2015 (7) TMI 721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.12.1999. subsequently, a survey was carried out at the business premises of the assessee, during which the concerned AO found that the assessee had claimed certain bogus expenses against the income. Further, the assessee declared the following amounts, during the course of survey, towards income for the A.Y.s 1998-99 & 1999-2000;   A.Y. 1998-99 A.Y.s 1999-2000 Excess Labour Charges Rs. 10,192,020/- Rs. 2,80,151/- Excess Labour Charges Rs. 40,000/- - Resale Rs. 2,86,000/- - Stock Rs. 9,93,627/- Rs. 23,71,955/- Excess Cash Rs. -  Rs.29,708 Total  Rs.23,38,647/-  Rs.26,81,814/-     3. Later on, the concerned AO made certain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cond question, i.e. question [B], as stated above, is wrongly raised and does not require to be considered. 7. Mr. Parikh submitted that so far as the question involved in this appeal is concerned, i.e. the question [A], it has two parts / components. 8. Mr. Parikh submitted that so far as first part or component of question [A] is concerned, same is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in "CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD.", [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC), wherein, the Apex Court observed that when a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....intended to be subserved by the object of the legislation, and if another construction is possible apart from the literal construction, then that construction should be preferred." 9. So far as the second component of question [A] is concerned, i.e. the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) is concerned, Mr. Parikh submitted that same is covered by a decision of this Court in "CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION", [2014] taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat), wherein, this Court held that where the assessee did not deposit employee's contribution to employee's account in relevant fund before due date prescribed in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits same before due date under section 43B. ....