TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t brought in by Finance Act, 2021 on this issue has been held to be prospective in nature in the case of Shri Harendra Nath Biswas [ 2021 (7) TMI 942 - ITAT KOLKATA ] wherein it was held that the amendment/explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature and is not applicable to the earlier years - amendment/explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 on this issue is prospective and taking note that the relevant assessment year is 2015-16, we are of the opinion that the amendment/explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021 cannot be used to unsettle the settled position of law passed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijayshree Ltd.[ 2011 (9) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t when there was the delay on the part of the assessee while depositing the employees contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance in the relevant funds. According to the Ld. PCIT since there was delay caused by the assessee in depositing employees contribution to PF and ESI within the due date prescribed by respective PF Act and ESI Act, the disallowance of ₹ 1,08,038/- was required to be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Therefore, he set aside the assessment order only on this issue and held as under: 6. After having considered the position of law and facts and circumstances of the instant case, the employees' contribution paid after the due date as explained in the Explanation to Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... com 396 (Cal) and similar issue cropped up before this Tribunal in Royal Touch Fablon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY 2019-10, ITA 239/Kol/2021 dated 09.09.2021 wherein this view of the A.O. has been upheld wherein the Tribunal held as under: 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR Shri Sushil Surana submitted that the sole issue permeating in all the three (3) captioned appeals are regarding the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) in confirming the addition made by AO on account of delay in payment of employees' contribution towards PF ESI, even though the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution towards PF ESI before filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961[herein after the Act] According to Ld. AR, the amendmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution towards PF ESI before filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Having taken note of this fact and also the fact that this Tribunal has already taken a view that the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 on this issue has been held to be prospective in nature in the case of Shri Harendra Nath Biswas (supra), therefore, we reiterate the same view that the amendment/explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 on this issue is prospective; and taking note that the relevant assessment years are 2019-20 and 2017-18, the ibid explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021, cannot be used/applied to unsettle the settled position of law passed by the Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking note that the relevant assessment year is 2015-16, we are of the opinion that the amendment/explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021 cannot be used to unsettle the settled position of law passed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijayshree Ltd. (supra), since there is no retrospective legislative over-ruling. Therefore, we find that the A.O's action is in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Vijayshree Ltd. (supra). So therefore it is a plausible view, therefore, the Ld. PCIT could not have disturbed the action of the A.O. without holding it unsustainable in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
