TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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. 48,23,607/- 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. 45,57,186/- mechanically made by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) under the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by holding that the Appellant had deposited the Employees' Contribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 amendment takes effect from 1st April. 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of the case. 2. The appellant denies itself to be assessed to an income over and above the returned income of Rs. 2,26,71,180/- 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. 80,43,549/- mechanically made by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) under the provisions of section 36(1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by holding that the Appellant had deposited the Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund after the due date is bad in law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Authorities below erred in mechanically....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 amendment takes effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence the contention taken by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law. 10. The appellant relies on the ratio of recent decision of Honorable In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2.2 For the assessment year 2019-20, return of income was filed on 30.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.2,26,71,180/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. In the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act, the CPC disallowed the employees' contribution to PF and ESI to the tune of Rs. 80,43,549/-. The reason for making the disallowance was that the assessee did not remit the employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due date specified under the respective Act by way of intimation u/s. 143(1)(a). The assessee preferred rectification application u/s. 154. The Ld.AO rejected the same on 06.11.2020 for both A.Ys. under consideration. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B(b) operate on totally different equilibriums and have different parameters for due dates, i.e., employee's contribution is linked to payment before the due dates specified in the respective Acts and employer's contribution is linked to the payment before the prescribed due date for filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. It was held that result of any failure to pay within the prescribed dates also leads to different results. Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that in the case of employee's contribution, any failure to pay within the prescribed due date under the respective PF Act or Scheme will result in negating employer's claim for deduction permanently forever u/s.36(1)(va) of ....