Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM
ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER DIVA SINGH By the present appeal, the assessee assails the correctness of the order dated 30.07.2021 of ld. CIT(A) (NFAC i.e. National Faceless Appeal Centre) Delhi pertaining to 2017-18 assessment year passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 2. Though various grounds have been raised in the present appeal, however, it was the plea of the ld. AR that the issues can be subsumed in ground No. 2. The said ground which was argued reads as under :
ITA 252 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 2 of 4
“2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 8,68,410/- u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act even when the appellant collected ESI and PF from salary of the employees and whole of the amount had been,' deposited well before the due date of filing of Income Tax Return.”
The ld. AR submits that the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the consistent orders of the ITAT, Chandigarh Benches. As an illustration order dated 27.08.2021 in the case of M/s Jupiter Aqua Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT I TA 83/CHD/2021 was cited. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd(2014) 366 ITR 167(P&H).
The ld. Sr.DR relied upon the order. No contrary decision in support of the impugned order was relied upon for our consideration.
We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the issue, it is seen that it is no longer res-integra. The controversy whether the Amendments carried out by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(l)(va) and u/s 43B of the Act were prospective in nature or retrospective, hence clarificatory in nature have been put to rest by consistent orders of the different Benches of the ITAT namely order dated 03.08.2021 in Insta Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT, New Delhi in of the ITA 252 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 3 of 4 Delhi Benches; order dated 01.07.2021 of Hyderabad Benches in M/s Crescent Roadways Pvt. Ltd. V Dy. CIT, Hyderabad in ITA No. 1952/Hyd./2018, order dated 27.08.2021 in the case of M/s Jupiter Aqua Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT ITA 83/CHD/2021 and order dated 04.10.2021 in the case of Ajay Piplani Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru in of the ITAT Chandigarh Benches. Reference may also be made to various other orders of the Chandigarh Benches in ITA 250/CHD/2021 in the case of Shri Sukhdev Singh, Mohali and ITA 255/CHD/2021 in the case of M/s CZAR FAUCETS Ltd. Chandigarh wherein consistently following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nuchem Ltd (ITA No. 323 of 2009) and CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd.(2014) 366 ITR 167, the Tribunal has consistently allowed similar claims of the assessee holding that the Amendments effected by the Finance Act 2021 to section 36(l)(va) and u/s 43B of the income Tax Act are not clarificatory in nature and they do not have retrospective effect and are applicable prospectively.
Reading from the Notes on Clauses at the time of introduction of the Finance Act, 2021, it has been held that the amendment being applicable in relation to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent years. Accordingly, considering the factual backdrop of the present case and considering the ITA 252 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 4 of 4 amendments in Section 36(1|)(va) as well as Section 43B carried out by Finance Act, 2021 and Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 we hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable. Hence, the addition is directed to be deleted as the amount stood deposited by the due date as held in Section 139(1) of the Act. Hence, within time. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Said order was pronounced in the presence of the parties via Webex.
Order pronounced on 16th November, 2021.