TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore which is bad in law and on facts. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore of adding a sum of Rs. 2,64,870/- in respect of employee's contribution to Provident Fund under section 36(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the same was deposited within the due date of filing Income Tax Return and was allowable under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and on facts. 3. That in the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court in the case of CIT, Kolkata vs. M/s. Vijay Shree Limited 43 taxman.com 396 (Cal) which has been further followed by the Coordinate Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Harendra Nath Biswas vs. DCIT in ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 by the order dated 16.07.2021. The ld. DR could not show any decision contrary to the case law cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 3. I find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee as the assessment year involved is AY 2017-18 and the Explanation-5 inserted by Finance Act, 2021 to section 43B w.e.f. 01.04.2021 is not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. The relevant portion of the Coordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Harendra Nath Biswas vs. DCIT (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taxman.com 396 (Cal). However the Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contentions of the assessee in this regard and by relying on the Explanation-5 below section 43B which was brought in by Finance Act, 2021 to deny the claim of assessee. Therefore, the assessee is before us by preferring this appeal. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. First of all we do not countenance this action of the Ld. CIT(A) for the simple reason that the Explanation 5 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021 and relevant assessment year before us is AY 2019-20. Therefore the law laid down by the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court will apply and since this Explanation-5 has not been made retrospectively. So we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec. 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988. Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees' Contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance ....