TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 933
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.07.2021,. The assessments were framed by ADIT, Centralized Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru vide orders dated 21.02.2020 & 12.01.2020 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the 'Act'). 2. The only common issue in these two appeals of assessee for assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 is as regards to the disallowance of Employees' contribution to PF & ESI not credited before the due date of payment under respective Acts. For this, the assessee has raised various argumentative grounds running into 13 pages, but the only issue is as noted above. Hence, we need not to reproduce or adjudicate each and every ground. 3. Brief facts are that the Employees' cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vt. Ltd., in ITA No.402 & 403/CHNY/2021 vide order dated 08.12.2021, wherein it was held as follows: "6.5 In view of the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. The law passed today cannot be applied to the events of the past. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if somebody does something today, he do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments specifically stating those to be clarificatory or retrospectively depicting clear intention of the legislature. It can be seen from the same notes that few other amendments in the Income Tax Act were made by the same Finance Act specifically making those amendments retrospectively. For example, clause 40 seeks to amend S.92F. Clause iii (a) of S.92F is amended "so as to clarify that the activities mentioned in the said clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract." This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 01.04.2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses show that the legislature is fully aware of 3 concepts: (i) prospective amendment with effect from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emonstrating as to which amendments are clarificatory/retrospective in operation and which amendments are prospective. For example, explanation 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 un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, 2002. 6.7 We noted from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vatika Township P. Ltd., supra, that there cannot be imposition of any tax without the authority of law and such law has to be unambiguous and should prescribe the liability to pay taxes in clear terms. In present case before us, as noted by CIT(A) that their exists divergent judgements of various High Courts. The CIT(A) has noted the case laws in favour of Revenue: 1. Popular Vehicles & Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala), 2. CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala). The CIT(A) himself noted the ambiguity in para....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 and for that reason Parliament specifically chose to make the proviso affective from a particular date. In the present case also, the amendment brought out by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e. for and from assessment year 2021-22....