TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../12/2021 and 16/3/2022, for two consecutive years, being assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, dismissing the assessee/s's appeal contesting the processing of its' return of income for the relevant year/s under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide orders dated 01/10/2019 and 01/5/2020 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. Ghai, that the only issue arising in the instant appeal is the addition of the employee's contribution to the employee welfare funds for the reason of the same havin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a), added the Employees' contribution to the Employee Provident Fund, at Rs. 4,03,383 and Rs. 2,59,883 respectively for the relevant years, to the assessee/s's returned income u/s. 143(1) as the same stood deposited beyond the due date/s specified u/s. 36(1)(va), even as, admittedly, prior to the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) for the relevant years. Reliance stands placed by it on, among others, Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 409 ITR 225 (Mad), besides by the Delhi and Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal. The matter stands examined at length by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra), relied upon by the appellant/s, wherein, noticing, inter alia, the cited decision, it held that in view of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 a later date. That is, the fact of insertion of the said Explanations w.e.f. a later date is consistent with the language giving it a retro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vered 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, represented the uniform view across all the Hon'ble Courts prior to the deletion of the second proviso to s. 43B by Finance Act, 2003, w.e.f. 01/4/2004, and which (view) the E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, 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. Per the same, the Hon'ble High Court has opined on the prospective nature of the omission of the second proviso to s. 43B by Finance Act, 2003, w.e.f. 01/4/2004, so that the same would not, in it's view, impact the disallowance u/s. 43B(b) for the years under reference before it, i.e., AY 1992-93, 1994-95 & 1995-96. The issue considered by the Hon'ble Court is, thus, the same as by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Alom Extrusions ....