TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s appeals contesting the processing of its' returns of income for the relevant years under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide orders dated 22/2/2020 and 12/8/2020 for the said two consecutive years respectively. The appeals were, due to the issue/s involved being the same, taken for hearing, and are being decided per a common order, together. 2. At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Kumar, that the only issue arising in the instant appeals is the addition of the employee's contribution to the employee welfare funds for the reason of the same having been deposited beyond the due dates specified in its respect u/s. 36(1)(va), even as the same st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue has, invoking section 2(24)(x) r/w s. 36(1)(va), added the Employees' contribution to the Employee Provident Fund, at Rs. 18,57,223 & Rs. 6,12,965 for the two consecutive years respectively, to the assessee's returned income u/s. 143(1) as the same stood deposited beyond the due date specified u/s. 36(1)(va), even as, admittedly, prior to the due dates of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on, among others, CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 366 ITR 170 (Guj); CIT v. Merchem Ltd. [2015] 378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad). The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herein, remove any doubt in the matter, it opined, are unambiguously clear, so that s. 36(1)(va) and s. 43B operate in different fields and are applicable on different sums. Further, the stated date of the coming into effect (of the Explanations), i.e., 01/4/2021, it explained, would though be of no moment in view of the express language deeming the stated position as applicable since inception; that being the reason for bringing the Explanations on the statute, as the said amendments could otherwise have been effected through prospective clause/s to the relevant provisions. Rather, the tenor of the language employed, clearly giving the stated position a retrospective effect, necessarily requires the Explanations to be read as inserted from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision of the Act, it rendered the question of law posed before the Hon'ble Courts, i.e., if the employee's contribution to the employee welfare funds is exclusively covered u/s. 43B, as itself, with respect, misplaced, if not irrelevant. The view being canvassed was, thus, it held, viewed from any angle, wholly untenable. The view expressed by the Tribunal is in fact in agreement with that projected by the Board per its Circular (No. 22/2015, dtd. 17/12/2015), as also that canvassed per the impugned order with reference to several decisions, both explaining, as did the Explanatory Notes on the insertion of s. 36(1)(va) on the statute, the object of the said provision. It is this view, which in fact, as also noticed by the Tribunal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amendments per the said Explanations. The only circumstance justifying the impugned addition/s is a decision/s by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to our notice by the parties, or otherwise found. The decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in B.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 457 (MP), also noticed in Nikhil Mohine (supra), is not squarely on the point and, therefore, of no assistance to the Revenue. As regards the aspect of the retrospective nature of the Explanations under reference, we again find no difference in the view expressed in the impugned order/s, with that by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), i.e., per se. So, however....