TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....except variance in figures, grounds raised for assessment year 2018-2019 are reproduced :- "1. The order of the learned authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, facts, weight of evidence, probabilities and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant denies itself to be assessed to an income over and above the returned income of Rs. 13,99,90,463/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short CIT(A)), is not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 25,29,431/- mechanically made by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) under the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre has failed in appreciating the fact that the Amendment to Section 36(1) (va) of the Act shall be prospective in nature and shall not retrospective effect. The authorities below without application of mind has mechanically dismissed the appeal stating the recent ament made in Finance Act 2021, the action of the authorities below is bad in law. 9. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the Amendment is having only prospective effect and cannot be applied retrospectively, it is amply clarified in the Memorandum in para 6.2.2 of the Finance Act 2021 to Amendment to section 36(1) (va) of the Act, which is explicitly mentioned in the clear words that, the above amendmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come were filed on 06.02.2019 and 29.11.2019, declaring income of Rs. 13,99,90,463 and Rs. 11,95,09,250, respectively. The assessee was served with an intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act by assessing a sum of Rs. 14,25,19,894 for assessment year 2018-2019 and Rs. 12,16,44,172 for assessment year 2019-2020. The reason for the difference between the returned income and the assessed income u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act was on account of disallowance of sum of Rs. 25,29,431 ( for A.Y.2018-2019) and Rs. 21,34,922 (for A.Y. 2019-2020) being late remittance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI under the respective Acts. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dil; had held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payments were made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the ITAT that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DCIT (supra), reads as follows: "7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 43B of the IT Act means the contribution of the employer and the employee. That being so, if the contribution is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the IT Act is made, the employer is entitled for deduction. 21. The submission of Mr.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue that if the employer fails to deduct the employees' contribution on or before the due date, contemplated under the provisions of the PF Act and the PF Scheme, that would have to be treated as income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and in which case, the assessee is liable to pay tax on the said amount treating that as his income, deserves to be rejected. 22.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive from 01.04.2021 and will apply for and from assessment year 2021-2022 onwards. The following orders of the Tribunal had categorically held that the amendment to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Actby Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0030 Jaipur Trib. (ii) NCC Limited v. ACIT reported in (2021) 63 CCH 0060 Hyd Tribunal. (iii) Indian Geotechnical Services v. ACIT in ITA No.622/Del/ 2018 (order dated 27.08.2021). (iv) M/s.Jana Urban Services for Transformation Private Limited v. DCIT in ITA No.307/Bang/2021 (order dated 11th October, 2021) 7.3 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial....