TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [in short ld. "CIT(A)"] dated 11.04.2022 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.1998. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: "1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. A.O. misdirected himself in invoking provisions of sec. 43B in order to add the following statutory liabilities to the income of the appellant and the Ld. C.I.T.(A) simultaneously erred in having upheld such arbitrary and unlawful action in spite of the admitted fact that these liabilities did not accrue or paid during the relevant F.Y. and these were merely opening balances carried forward from earlier years and moreover the impugned issue raised in the departmenta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deposited before the due date for filing the ROI when as noted in the impugned order the assessee filed Xerox copy of the challan evidencing deposit made to the Govt, account. 4b. That, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) while upholding the disallowance/addition of Rs. 2,970/- for A.Y. 1995-96 has also misinterpreted the amendments in secs. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act by inserting corresponding Explanations by The Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2021 as clarificatory in nature and hence retrospective effect in spite of the fact that as decided by the jurisdictional Tribunal in several cases, the said amendments have prospective effect from A.Y. 2021-22 and subsequent years and the legislature itself has condoned the defaults prior to 01/04/2021. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h do not qualify for any addition u/s. 43B of the Act. 7. Per contra, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We note that ld. AO made addition for other liabilities standing in the balance sheet as on the close of the year for want of proof of payment of said liabilities before the due date of filing return of income and since the assessee failed to do so provisions of Section 43B of the Act were invoked and impugned additions made in the hands of the assessee. The alleged liability of Rs. 12,90,086/- consists of the following: a) Additional Sales-tax Rs. 6,22,856/- b) Bihar Sales-tax Rs. 6,63,412/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition at Rs. 6,22,856/- for additional sales-tax and central sales-tax at Rs. 292/- u/s. 43B of the Act because both these amounts were not on account of liability for the year under appeal and they were brought forward balance of other liabilities from AY 1992-93. Thus, both the additions of Rs. 6,22,856/- & Rs. 292/- are deleted. Ground no. 1 of the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, we take up ground no. 2 pertaining to addition of Rs. 6,63,412/- being part of the total addition of Rs. 12,90,086/- confirmed by ld. CIT(A). On perusal of records, we find that the other liabilities as on 31.03.1994 at Rs. 11,72,779/- (as discussed above in ground no. 1 of this appeal), consists of Bihar sales-t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id amount has been paid on 30.04.1995 and this fact remains uncontroverted. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 556/- made u/s. 43B of the Act and allow ground no. 3 raised by the assessee. 13. Ground no. 4a & 4b relates to disallowance of employees' contribution towards PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act pertaining to March, 1995. Though there is a delay in deposit by 10 days as it has been paid on 24.04.1995, but both the lower authorities denied the deduction alleging that the same has not been paid as per the due date prescribed in the PF & ESI Act. However, this fact is not in dispute that the alleged amount has been paid before the due date of filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and as per the consis....