TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] 1 National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC for short] is not justified in upholding the determination of total loss of appellant in the Intimation u/s. 143[1] of the Act, at Rs. 5,87,31,110/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 6,06,66,516/-, on account of the disallowance of Rs. 19,35,406/- made u/s. 36(1)[va] of the Act, based upon the details in the Tax Audit Report of the Chartered Accountant in Form 3CD, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] 1 NFAC ought to have appreciated that the aforesaid disallowance of Rs. 19,35,406/- in respect of the belated payments of the Employee's share ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant's case. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs." 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: For the assessment year 2018-2019, the return of income was filed on 07.10.2018, declaring loss of Rs. 6,06,66,516. The assessee was served with an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act by assessing loss of Rs. 5,87,31,110. The reason for the difference between the returned loss and the assessed loss u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance of sum of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A 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 in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DCIT (supra) by following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 provident fund or the fund under the ESI Act within fifteen days of the closure of every month pay. It is clear that the word "contribution" used in Clause (b) of Section 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 subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loyees' 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 assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective in nature. Even otherwise, the amendment has been mentioned to be effective 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 Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. (i) Dhabriya Polywood Limited v. ACIT....