9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is time barred by 42 days for which necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay has been filed. The AR further submitted that the assessee could not file appeal within the time allowed under the Act, mainly due to lockdown imposed by the Govt. on account of spread of Covid-19 infections and in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court suo motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, if the period of delay is covered within the period specified in the order of the Apex Court , then same needs to be condoned in view of specific problem faced by the public on account of Covid-19 pandemic. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, fairly agreed that delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. Having heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. 2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) went wrong in holding that the amendments made to Sec. 36(1)(va) and Sec. 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 is retrospective in operation, when the Act clearly says that it shall come into force w.e.f 01.04.2021. This is also against the settled position of law laid down by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 2.4 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not considered the elaborate submissions and case laws cited by the Appellant in the proper perspective." 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of electrical equipment installation and maintenance services filed its return of income for assessment year 2018-19 on 24.09.2018 admitting total income of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in light of amendment to provisions of section u/s.36(1(va) by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 by insertion of Explanation 1 on the ground that it is clarificatory in nature and thus, applicable retrospectively from the date such proviso was inserted to the statute and hence, the learned CIT(A) was right in confirming disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that this issue of deduction towards employees contribution to PF & ESI after due date specified under respective Acts, but within due date prescribed for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as has been considered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant findings of the Tribunal in ITA No.402 & 403/Chny/2021 dated 08.12.2021 are as under:- "6.8 In the present case also, before insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, there is ambiguity regarding due date of payment of employees' contribution on account of provident fund and ESI, whether the due date is as per the respective acts or up to the due date of filing of return of income of the assessee. As noted by Hon'ble Supreme Court an amendment made to a taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove hardship only of the assessee and not of the Department. Imposing of a retrospective levy on the assessee would be caused undue hardship and for that reason Parliament specifically chose to make the proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
