SH. SUKHDEV SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO-WARD-6(4), CHANDIGARH

The ld. AR Mr.Vineet Krishan inviting attention to the copy of Form No. 3CA disclosing the factual position and the order of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Jupiter Aqua Lines Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT ,Circle 6(1) Mohali in dated 27 t h August 2021 submitted that the issue is fully covered in assessee's favour by virtue of the order of the ITAT and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly, it was his prayer that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed.

The ld. Sr.DR considering the decisions and the record relied upon the impugned order. No contrary decision was cited by her.

We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen that in the present appeal, the assessee has only assailed the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) vide his order passed u/s 250(6) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,52,231/- on the grounds that the ESI & PF payments were not made within time as per the relevant Statute. The claim of the assessee that the payments were made before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) was held to be not relevant. It is seen that the said issue as far as the present Forum is concerned, stands fully covered in favour of the assessee not only by the consistent orders of the various Benches of the ITAT namely; the order dated 03.08.2021 of ITA 255 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 3 of 4 the Delhi Benches in the case of Insta Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA 6941/Del/2017; order dated 01.07.2021 of the Vs DCIT in but also consistent orders of the Chandigarh Bench. It is seen that all along the Co- ordinate Benches have held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act effected by the Finance Act, 2021 is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. While coming to the said conclusion, the Benches have relied upon and read from the Notes on Clauses at the time of introduction of the Finance Act, 2021 and have held that the amendment is applicable in relation to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent years and not retrospectively. Thus, in view of this legal position as considered by the Co-ordinate Benches and taking note of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nuchem Limited ITA 323 of 2009 and CIT Vs Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 167 we are of the view that the additions cannot be made or sustained on the strength of the amendment effected by Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act as the legal position thereon is very clear. The departmental stand that it is clarificatory in nature has consistently been rejected. Thus, in the face of the clear legal position, as set out hereinabove,

ITA 255 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2018-19 Page 4 of 4 we find that the claim of the assessee is to be allowed in the year under consideration which is 2018-19 assessment year.

Order pronounced on 2 n d November, 2021.