TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even justifying a rectification u/s. 154/254(2), even where rendered after the date of the order sought to be rectified. See SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD [ 2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] and SMT. ARUNA LUTHRA. [ 2001 (8) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] No such decision has been found, or otherwise pointed out by the parties, as was the case before the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine [ 2021 (11) TMI 927 - ITAT JABALPUR] Any such decision, even if discovered later, may operate to amend this order, or the order giving appeal effect thereto, to bring it in conformity or agreement with the said decision/s, of course, after allowing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The impugned additions, therefore, could not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Bench, stated of there being no decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court to the contrary. The ld. Sr. DR, Sh. Halder, could not rebut the said contentions by Sh. Kumar and, further, on asking, could not state of any decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court directly on the point, even as he relied on the impugned order. 3. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The Tribunals decision in Nikhil Mohine 3.1 The Revenue has, invoking section 2(24)(x) r/w s. 36(1)(va), added the Employees contribution to the Employee Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance Fund, aggregating to rs. 2,09,050, to the assessee s returned income u/s. 154 as the same stood deposited beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e., to the exclusion of s. 36(1)(va), are held as retrospective. Legislative intent being the cornerstone and the sole determinant of any interpretative exercise, both the language of the relevant provisions, as well as of the recently inserted Explanations thereto, introduced with a view to, as stated therein, remove any doubt in the matter, it opined, are unambiguously clear, so that s. 36(1)(va) and s. 43B operated in different fields and 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 36(1)(va) into play for its deduction, and which would therefore have to be given effect to. That is, even regarding the same, for the sake of argument, as covered by s. 43B, a non-obstante provision, inasmuch as s. 43B applied only qua deductions otherwise allowable , i.e., under any provision of the Act, it rendered the question of law posed before the Hon ble Courts, i.e., if the employee s contribution to the employee welfare funds is exclusively covered 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. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittle consequence in view of the limited scope of an amendment u/s. 154, law on which is well-settled ( ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC)), with the Explanatory Notes to the Provisions of the Finance Bill, 2021 itself admitting of a conflict of judicial opinion, explaining that to be the reason for effecting the amendments per the said Explanations . The only circumstance justifying the impugned addition/s is a decision/s by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2). No such decision, however, despite asking, stands brought to my notice by the parties, or otherwise found. The decision in B.S. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 457 (MP), referred to in the impugned order, also noticed in Nikhil Mohine (supra), is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
