TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../The ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru. And Vivek Singhal Versus CPC, Bengaluru And M/s. Kohinoor Elastics Pvt. Ltd Versus DCIT - 2(1), Indore. MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Supriya Sharma, AR For the Respondent : Ram Maurya, D.R. ORDER PER BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, A.M.: THESE APPEALS: 1. These eleven appeals filed by different parties [referred to as "assessee"] are directed against the orders passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal) ["Ld. CIT(A)"] as per the following details: S.No. ITA No. / Party Assessment Year Date of CIT(A)'s order 1. 151/Ind/2021 GSD Constructions Indore Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT 2018-19 30/07/2021 2. 152/Ind/2021 Kavita Bapat, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce there is no delay in fact. We confronted the Ld. DR who agreed to the submission of Ld. AR. In view of this, the appeal are proceeded with for hearing, there being no delay. BACKGROUND: 3. In all these cases, the return filed by the assessee was processed by the learned CPC, Bangalore ["Ld. AO"] u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] after making a disallowance of delayed payment of employees' contributions to Provident Fund / Employees State Insurance ("PF / ESI"). Being aggrieved by the disallowance so made by Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal of assessee. Again the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred appeal and now befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also not sustainable, as held by ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in M/s. S.V. Engineering Constructions India (P) Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.130/Viz/2021) order dated 23.09.2021. 8. With these submissions, the Ld. AR prayed that the disallowance made by Ld. AO is illegal and deserves to be deleted. SUBMISSION OF Ld. DR: 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities. He further submitted that in following decisions it has been held that once the employees' contributions are paid after the due dates under PF / ESI laws, disallowance is attracted even if the assessee has made payments within the time allowed u/s 43B i.e. upto the due date u/s 139(1) for filing of return: (a) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clarificatory in nature and hence they would apply retrospectively in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2004) 5 SCC 1. Therefore, according the Ld. DR the amendments are applicable to the assessment-year involved in the present appeal too and hence the disallowance made by Ld. AO is very much in accordance with the law. 11. With these submissions, the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the employees contributions to PF / ESI not paid by the assessee upto due dates under the PF / ESI laws and therefore the disallowance must be upheld. OUR ANALYSIS: 12. We have considered the rival contentions and submission of both sides and also perused the relevant materials available on rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the amendments are effective from 01.04.2021. Further the Memorandum explaining the Provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 clearly prescribes thus: "These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years." Thus, the legislature itself has categorically stated that the amendments shall apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Therefore these amendments are not applicable to the assessment- years preceding the assessment-year 2021-22 i.e. not applicable upto assessment-year 2020-21. This has also been held so in several decisions of ITAT Benches including following: (a) ITAT Kolkata in Harendra Nath Biswas Vs. DCIT, ITA ....