TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME COURT] had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood - amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective in nature. Even otherwise, the amendment has been mentioned to be effective from 01.04.2021 and will apply for and from assessment year 2021-2022 onwards. The amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature and not retrospective. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021 to Sec. 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act will not have application to relevant assessment year, we direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of employees' contribution to ESI since the assessee has made payment before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 411/Bang/2021 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2021 - George George K., Member (J) And Chandra Poojari, Member (A) For the Appellant : S. V. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned CIT[A]/NFAC is not justified in refusing the follow the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in favour of the assessee on the ground that the said judgment was rendered before the aforesaid clarificatory amendments made under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, 7-e, appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234A and 234C of the Act, as computed in the intimation u/s. 143[1] of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: In the relevant Assessment Year, return of income was filed on 02.11.2018 declaring income of ₹ 2,36,35,483/-. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) issued an intimation under section 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466 wherein it was held that provision for levy of surcharge on income tax in the case of block assessment is not clarificatory and therefore not retrospective in operation. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Bengaluru Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DCIT (supra) had held that amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the Act is not clarificatory. The relevant finding of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakuntala Agarbathi Company Vs. DCIT (supra), reads as follows: 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the assessee has remitted the employees' contribution to ESI before the due date for filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) has categorically held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI provided the payment was made prior to the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act. The Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Actby Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M. Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is for the removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood (page 597). In this case, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) the assessee would have been entitled to deduction of employees' contribution to ESI, if the payment was made prior to due date of filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2021 to section 36[1][va] and 43B of the I.T. Act, alters the position of law adversely to the assessee. Therefore, such amendment cannot be held to be retrospective in nature. Even otherwise, the amendment has been mentioned to be effective from 01.04.2021 and will apply for and from assessment year 2021-2022 onwards. The following orders of the Tribunal had categorically held that the amendment to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... namended provisions would have to be interpreted in the manner that right from 01.06.1976 penalty would have been leviable. Hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court went on to hold that the amendment is clarificatory in nature and hence will apply for the period before 01.04.2003. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:- 6. It would be of some relevance to take note of what this Court said in Virtual's case (supra). Pointing out one of the important tests at para 51 it was observed that even if the statute does contain a statement to the effect that the amendment is clarificatory or declaratory, that is not the end of the matter. The Court has to analyse the nature of the amendment to come to a conclusion whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision. Therefore, the date from which the amendment is made operative does not conclusively decide the question. The Court has to examine the scheme of the statute prior to the amendment and subsequent to the amendment to determine whether amendment is clarificatory or substantive. In Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (1979 (120) ITR 921) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1977 (110) ITR 21 (St.) has also substantial relevance. Same reads as follows: New Explanation 4 defines 'the amount of tax sought to be evaded'. According to the definition, this expression will ordinarily mean the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. In a case, however, where on setting off the concealed income against any loss incurred by the assessee under other head of income or brought forward from earlier years, the' total income is reduced to a figure Lower than the concealed income or even to a minus figure, 'the tax sought to be evaded' will mean the tax chargeable on the concealed income as if it were the total income. Another exception to the general definition of the expression 'tax sought to be evaded' given earlier is a case to which Explanation 3 applies. Here, the tax sought to be evaded will be the tax chargeable on the entire total income assessed. 10. A combined reading of the Committee's recommendations and the Circular makes the position clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been provided that the due date in section 43B is of no consequence to judge the applicability of provisions of section 36[1][va]of the Act and that too with effect from 01.04.2021. In other words, there is sufficient intrinsic evidence to show that these amendments are not clarificatory in nature and the mere use of the expression it is clarified cannot be determinative of the nature of the amendment made. Furthermore, in the present case, Legislature has expressly given only prospective effect to these Explanations as is evident from the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021, by stating that the said amendment i.e., the insertion of another Explanation to the already existing explanation to clause [va] to sub-section [1] of section 36 of the Act, will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-2022 and subsequent assessment years. In contradistinction the relevant Finance Act, 2003 amending section 271(1)(iii) and Explanation 4 did not speak of application and merely provided that the amendments will take effect from 01.04.2003 [reproduced in para 5 of the judgment in case of Gold Coin (supra)]. 9. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the decision reported in L. 'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing these dicta, a little later. 33. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of fairness, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in the decision reported in L. 'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
