TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition and hold that the Amendment brought in Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 by inserting an Explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act is prospective in nature and would apply from AY 2021-22 onwards and, therefore, the amendment is not applicable to this assessment years (Assessment Year 2019-20) under consideration. - Appeal of assessee allowed. - I.T.A. No. 375/Kol/2021 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2022 - Shri A. T. Varkey , JM For the Appellant : Shri R. S. Ghosal, Advocate Shri V. N. Datta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT ORDER This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 147.09.2021 for AY 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 17.11.2021, wherein assessee s favour view was taken by the Tribunal after holding that the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 1.04.2021 is prospective in operation and so will be in force from AY 2021-22 onwards and not retrospective. The relevant portions of decision which reads as under:- 17. Have heard both the parties. We note that the Finance Bill, 2021 has brought in an amendment which disallows the employees contribution made in PF and ESI if not made within the due date as prescribed by the respective statutes (PF and ESI Act). So after the amendment has been inserted according to ShriMiraj D Shah takes effect from 1st April, 2021 i.e AY 2021-22 and subsequent assessment year and if the remittance of PF/ESI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of determining the due date under this clause 18. We find that this amendment has been brought in the Act to provide certainty about the applicability of Section 43B in respect of belated payment of employees contribution. In order to test whether the amendment brought in later is retrospective or not one has to apply the test as laid by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Snowtex Investment Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon ble Supreme court took note of the law laid down on this issue by the Constitution Bench in M/s Vatika Township Ltd. and held that the intent of the Parliament/legislature need to be looked into for ascertaining whether the amendment should be retrospective or not. In Vatika Township Ltd. (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in M/s Aimil Ltd.(supra) which is in favour of assessee. So we note that later decision of the Delhi/Hyderabad Tribunal have followed the decision favouring assessee in the light of the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in M/s Vegetable Products (supra). In the light of the aforesaid decision and relying on the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s Snowtex Investment Ltd. (supra) and also taking note of the binding decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court on this issue before us in ShriVijayshree Ltd. Ltd.(supra), M/s Philips Carbon Black Ltd.(supra), M/s Coal India Ltd.(supra), M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd. (supra), we set aside the impugned order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
