TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in passing the appellate order in the manner passed. The appellate order as passed is void-ab-initio and bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without following the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court and honourable Apex court. The order passed without following the legal precedent is bad in law and therefore liable to be quashed. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre should have, by following the principles laid down for binding precedence allow the appeal. On the contrary, the dismissal of appeal despite binding judicial precedent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B brought in by Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective, clarificatory and declaratory in nature and in thus confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,31,366/- as made to the returned income of the appellant. The disallowance as made being bad in law and on facts should have been deleted. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in levying interest u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The appellant denies his liability to pay interest as levied. The interest levied being erroneous are to be deleted. 7. In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, it is requested that the order passed u/s 250 of the Act be quashed or at least ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same is paid prior to due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. It was further held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that an identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DICT in ITA No.385/Bang/2021 (order dated 21.10.2021). 6. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of law:- "Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in affirming the finding of Assessing Officer in denying the appellant's claim of deductions of the employees contribution to PF/ESI alleging that the payment was not made by the appellant in accordance with the provisions u/s 36[1][va] of the I.T.Act?" 7.1 In deciding the above substantial question of law, the Hon'ble High Court rendered the following findings:- "20. Paragraph-38 of the PF Scheme provides for Mode of payment of contributions. As provided in sub para (1), the employer shall, before paying the member, his wages, deduct his contribution from his wages and deposit the same together with his own contribution and other charges as stipulated therein with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee would have been entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI, if the payment was made prior to due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the I.T.Act, alters the position of law adversely to the ....