NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 81/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 CPC, cuke Neeraj Purohit Bengaluru. A-153, A-153 Man Darpan, Vs. Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGSPP2842B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing 11/04/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 19/04/2022

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as (NFAC)] dated 28.07.2021 for the AY 2019-20.

2 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

that the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in late filing the appeal before ITAT and the delay occurred may kindly be condoned.

“1. On facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of CPC in making disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC, paid before the due date of filing of return of income but, after the specified due date of respective Acts by making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a). Appellant prays such adjustment being outside the scope of provisions of sec 143(1)(a) of the Act, the intimation issued deserves to be quashed. 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,80,660/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of deduction claimed on account of payment of contribution of employees’ provident fund by brushing aside the submission that as per the provision of section 43B of the Act, assessee’s claim has to be allowed where the contribution is deposited before the due date or filing of return of income. Thus the addition of Rs. 2,80,660/- deserves to be deleted. 1.2 That the ld. AO has further erred in ignoring the fact that the deduction was claimed on the basis of ruling of jurisdictional High Court prevailing at the time of filing return of income. Appellant prays that no liability can be fastened upon the assessee on the basis of subsequent amendment made in statue, therefore consequent disallowance deserves to be deleted.

3 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

“1. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) 2. Amil Limited (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) 3. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Niga, Ltd (2014) 363 ITR 307.

4 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

5 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

the date of filing the return of income by the assessee U/s 139(1) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from that relied on the decisions in case of Dhabriya Plywood Ltd. vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru 133 taxmann.com 135 (Jaipur-Trib.), Nazin Ahmad vs. ADIT in ITA No. 269/JP/2021 and Ravi Goenka vs. ADIT in ITA No. 265 & 268/JP/2021. Further, he relied on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the ITAT in the case of M/s Adyar Ananda Bhavan vs. ACIT in ITA No. 402 & 403/Chny/2021 order dated 08.12.2021 where in the Tribunal held that

“ 6.9 Thus, from the above, it is clear that the amendment brought in the statue i.e., by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the act amended by inserting explanation in prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the amended provisions of Section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the act are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19 but will apply from assessment year 2021- 22 and subsequent assessment year. Hence, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 12. Similarly the Jaipur Bench of the ITAT in the case of Dhabriya Polywood Ltd. vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru 133 taxmann.com 135 (Jaipur- Trib.) held as under:-

“Admittedly and undisputedly, the employee’s contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees have been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the ld CIT(A) has referred to the explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 and has also referred to the rationale of the amendment as explained by the Memorandum in the Finance bill, 2021, however, he has simply failed to consider the express wordings in the said memorandum which say “these amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years”. The impugned assessment year is assessment

6 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

year 2019-20 and therefore, the said amendment cannot be applied in the instant case.” 13. The reliance was also placed on the decisions of the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the following cases:-

• Moona Dewan vs. CPC, Bengalure in ITA No. 282/JP/2021 dated 19.01.2022 (Jaipur-Trib.) • M/s Punjab Engineering Works vs. DCIT in ITA No. 132/JP/2021 dated 15.11.2021 (Jaipur-Trib.) • M/s Mohanlal Khatri vs. ACIT in ITA No. 144/JP/2021 dated 29.11.2021 (Jaipur-Trib.)

7 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

years 2015-16 in the case of Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Company Vs. DCIT and in the case of Bikaner Ceramics Private Limited, Bikaner Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru, in ITA No. 60/Jodh/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20 as under:- 7. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

8.1 Identical issue with the similar facts have already been adjudicated by the various Benches of the ITAT.

8.2 In the case of Harendra Nath Biswas vs DCIT Koltaka, ITA No. 186/Kol/2021 for the A.Y. 2019-20, similar issue has been decided vide order dated 16.7.2021 by the ITAT ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata. The Relevant findings have been given in para 4 of the said order, which read as under;-

“4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. First of all we do not countenance this action of the Ld. CIT(A) for the simple reason that the Explanation 5 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.04.2021 and relevant assessment year before us is AY 2019-20. Therefore the law laid down by the Jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court will apply and since this Explanation- 5 has not been made retrospectively. So we are inclined to follow the same and we reproduce the order of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vijayshree Ltd. supra wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has taken note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. reported in 390 ITR 306. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s decision in Vijayshree Ltd. supra is reproduced as under:

8 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

“This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against an order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1091/Kol/2010 relating to assessment year 2006- 07 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A).

The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the deletion of the addition by the AO on account of Employees Contribution to ESI and PF by invoking the provision of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act was correct or not.

It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified.

Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal.

After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988.

Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees’ Contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act.

9 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.”

In the light of the aforesaid discussion we do not accept the Ld. CIT(A)’s stand denying the claim of assessee since assessee delayed the employees contribution of EPF & ESI fund and as per the binding decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Vijayshree Ltd. (supra) u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act since assessee had deposited the employees contribution before filing of Return of Income. Therefore, the assessee succeeds and we allow the appeal of the assessee.”

“2. Coming to the sole substantive issue of ESI/PF disallowance of Rs.1,09,343/- and Rs.3,52,622/-, the assessee’s and revenue’s stand is that the same has been paid before the due date of filing sec. 139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. I notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendments in Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the forergoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 36 (va) of the Act; respectively. However,

10 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable only with prospective effect from 1.4.2021, I hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments even if the Revenue’s case is supported by the following case law.

(i) CIT vs. Merchem Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 443(Ker) (ii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. South India Corporation Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. GTN Textiles Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (Ker) (v) CIT vs. Jairam & Sons [2004] 269 ITR 285 (Ker) The impugned ESI/PF disallowance is directed to be deleted therefore.”

“13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee as part of its return of income, it is noted that the assessee has deposited the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) and the last of such deposits were made on 16.04.2019 whereas due date of filing the return for the impugned assessment year 2019- 20 was 31.10.2019 and the return of income was also filed on the said date. Admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’s contribution to ESI and PF which have been collected by the assessee from its employees have thus been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act.

11 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

“20. On perusal of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43(B)(b) and analyzing the judgments rendered, in our view as well, it is clear that the legislature brought in the statute Section 43(B)(b) to curb the activities of such tax payers who did not discharge their statutory liability of payment of dues, as aforesaid; and rightly so as on the one hand claim was being made under Section 36 for allowing the deduction of GPF, CPF, ESI etc. as per the system followed by the assessees in claiming the deduction i.e. accrual basis and the same was being allowed, as the liability did exist but the said amount though claimed as a deduction was not being deposited even after lapse of several years. Therefore, to put a check on the said claims/deductions having been made, the said provision was brought in to curb the said activities and which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. (supra).

12 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

and, furthermore second proviso was removed by Finance Act, 2003 therefore, the deduction towards the employer's contribution, if paid, prior to due date of filing of return can be claimed by the assessee. In our view, the explanation appended to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act further envisage that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date admissible at the time of submitting return of the income under Section 139 of the Act in respect of the previous year can be claimed by the assessee for deduction out of their gross total income. It is also clear that Sec.43B starts with a notwithstanding clause & would thus override Sec.36(1) (va) and if read in isolation Sec. 43B would become obsolete. Accordingly, contention of counsel for the revenue is not tenable for the reason aforesaid that deductions out of the gross income for payment of tax at the time of submission of return under Section 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of PF or other contribution referred to in Clause (b) are paid within the due date under the respective enactments by the assessees and not under the due date of filing of return.

13 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

14 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “

“The deletion with effect from April 1, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2003 of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which stipulates that contributions to the provided fund and Employees State Insurance Fund should be made within the time mentioned in section 36(1)(va), that is, the time allowed under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as well as the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, it treated as retrospective in nature. If the employees’ contribution is not deposited thereafter, the

15 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

employer not only pays interest and delayed payment but can incur penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the those Acts. In so far as Income-tax Act, 1961, is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit of deduction of the payments, if the actual payment is made before the return is filed. Where for the assessment year 2002-03 the assessee had deposited employer’s contribution as well as employees’ contribution towards provident fund and ESI after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules but before the due date for filing the return under the Income-tax Act: Held accordingly, that no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by the Finance Act, 2003.” 17. From the above discussion, it is clear that there are series of decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue and even Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Industrial Security & Intelligence India P Ltd., (supra) held that the payment of employees contribution in regard to PF & ESI if made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, the same is allowable as deduction as per the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act.

Now, the question arises, whether by the Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) by inserting the Explanation 2 r.w.s. 43B of the Act have been amended, whereby it is clarified that the provisions of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply and shall be deemed ought to have been applied for the purpose of determining the due date under this clause. In our opinion, this amendment has been brought in the statute book to provide certainty about the applicability of provisions of Section 43B of the Act inspite of belated payment of employee’s contribution. We also noted from the memorandum explaining the provisions to Finance Act, 2021, wherein relevant Clauses to said memorandum clearly intended that the amendment shall take effect from

16 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

01.04.2021 and will accordingly apply to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. The relevant Clauses 8 & 9 of the memorandum explaining the provisions are reproduced as under:-

“Rationalisation of various Provisions Payment by employer of employee contribution to a fund on or before due date Clause (24) of section 2 of the Act provides an inclusive definition of the income. Sub-clause (x) to the said clause provide that income to include any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of ESI Act or any other fund for the welfare of such employees. Section 36 of the Act pertains to the other deductions. Sub-section (1) of the said section provides for various deductions allowed while computing the income under the head ‗Profits and gains of business or profession‘. Clause (va) of the said sub-section provides for deduction of any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. Explanation to the said clause provides that, for the purposes of this clause, "due date” to mean the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee's contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule, order or notification issued there-under or under any standing order, award, contract of service or otherwise. Section 43B specifies the list of deductions that are admissible under the Act only upon their actual payment. Employer's contribution is covered in clause (b) of section 43B. According to it, if any sum towards employer's contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date for furnishing the return of the income under sub-section (1) of section 139, assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 43B and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This provision does not

17 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

cover employee contribution referred to in clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act. Though section 43B of the Act covers only employer‘s contribution and does not cover employee contribution, some courts have applied the provision of section 43B on employee contribution as well. There is a distinction between employer 40 contribution and employee‘s contribution towards welfare fund. It may be noted that employee‘s contribution towards welfare funds is a mechanism to ensure the compliance by the employers of the labour welfare laws. Hence, it needs to be stressed that the employer‘s contribution towards welfare funds such as ESI and PF needs to be clearly distinguished from the employee‘s contribution towards welfare funds. Employee‘s contribution is employee own money and the employer deposits this contribution on behalf of the employee in fiduciary capacity. By late deposit of employee contribution, the employers get unjustly enriched by keeping the money belonging to the employees. Clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act was inserted to the Act vide Finance Act 1987 as a measures of penalizing employers who mis-utilize employee‘s contributions. Accordingly, in order to provide certainty, it is proposed to – (i) amend clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act by inserting another explanation to the said clause to clarify that the provision of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the ―due date‖ under this clause; and (ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.”

18 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit '

“5.12…. it is concluded that the scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are different and as regards deduction elated to payment of employee’s contribution to PF and ESI beyond due date, there is no question of reading both provisions together. For considering such issue, application of Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(X) alone is the proper course and any other interpretation will be against the intention of legislature and would defeat the object and scope of both the provisions vix., 43B and 36(1)(va). If the payment was not done within the stipulated time prescribed under the relevant enactment, the benefit of deduction cannot be claimed, as such belated

19 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

payment is not a valid payment to attract deduction under the purview of the Income Tax Act. The contention and judicial pronouncements relied upon by appellant are not acceptable in view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs. 6. This in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance is confirmed. All the grounds are dismissed.” 20. After considering the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that unless contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. The law passed today cannot be applied to the events of the past. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if somebody does something today, he do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it. According to Hon’ble Apex court every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit, which means law looks forward not backward. In the case of Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., (Supra), the issue under challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court was the insertion of proviso to section 113 of the Act by the Finance Act 2002 for charging of surcharge. Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that though provision for surcharge under the Finance Acts have been in existence since 1995, the charge of surcharge with respect to block assessments, having been created for the first time by the insertion of proviso to Section 113 of the Act, by Finance Act, 2002, it is clearly a substantive provision and is to be construed as prospective in operation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the amendment neither purports to be merely clarificatory nor is there any material to suggest that it was intended by parliament.

20 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

The Hon’ble Supreme Court finally held that the proviso to Section113 of the Act is prospective and not retrospective. For this proposition their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at page 495 as under:-

“Notes on Clauses” appended to Finance Bill, 2002 while proposing insertion of proviso categorically states that “this amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2002”. These become epigraphic words, when seen in contradistinction to other amendments specifically stating those to be clarificatory or retrospectively depicting clear intention of the legislature. It can be seen from the same notes that few other amendments in the Income Tax Act were made by the same Finance Act specifically making those amendments retrospectively. For example, clause 40 seeks to amend S.92F. Clause iii (a) of S.92F is amended “so as to clarify that the activities mentioned in the said clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract.” This amendment takes effect retrospectively from 01.04.2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses show that the legislature is fully aware of 3 concepts: (i) prospective amendment with effect from a fixed date; (ii) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and (iii) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature. Thus, it was a conscious decision of the legislature, even when the legislature knew the implication thereof and took note of the reasons which led to the insertion of the proviso, that the amendment is to operate prospectively. Learned counsel appearing for the assessees sagaciously contrasted the aforesaid stipulation while effecting amendment in Section 113 of the Act, with various other provisions not only in the same Finance Act but Finance Acts pertaining to other years where the legislature specifically provided such amendment to be either retrospective or clarificatory. In so far as amendment to Section 113 is concerned, there is no such language used and on the contrary, specific stipulation is added making the provision effective from 1st June, 2002. (e) There is yet another very interesting piece of evidence that clarifies the provision beyond any pale of doubt, viz. understanding of CBDT

21 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit

itself regarding this provision. It is contained in CBDT circular No.8 of 2002 dated 27th August, 2002, with the subject “Finance Act, 2002 – Explanatory Notes on provision relating to Direct Taxes”. This circular has been issued after the passing of the Finance Act, 2002, by which amendment to Section 113 was made. In this circular, various amendments to the Income Tax Act are discussed amply demonstrating as to which amendments are clarificatory/retrospective in operation and which amendments are prospective. For example, explanation to Section 158BB is stated to be clarificatory in nature. Likewise, it is mentioned that amendments in Section 145 whereby provisions of that section are made applicable to block assessments is made clarificatory and would take effect retrospectively from 1st day of July, 1995. When it comes to amendment to Section 113 of the Act, this very circular provides that the said amendment along with amendments in Section 158BE, would be prospective i.e. it will take effect from 1st June, 2002. (f) Finance Act, 2003, again makes the position clear that surcharge in respect of block assessment of undisclosed income was made prospective. Such a stipulation is contained in second proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 2 of Finance Act, 2003. This proviso reads as under: “Provided further that the amount of income-tax computed in accordance with the provisions of section 113 shall be increased by a surcharge for purposes of the Union as provided in Paragraph A, B, C, D or E, as the case may be, of Part III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act.” Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases of block assessments and thereby making it prospective in nature. The charge in respect of the surcharge, having been created for the first time by the insertion of the proviso to Section 113, is clearly a substantive provision and hence is to be construed prospective in operation. The amendment neither purports to be merely clarificatory nor is there any material to suggest that it was intended by Parliament. Furthermore, an amendment made to a taxing statute can be said to be

22 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit intended to remove 'hardships' only of the assessee, not of the Department. On the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship and for that reason Parliament specifically chose to make the proviso effective from June 1, 2002.” 21. As per ratio laid down by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vatika Township P. Ltd. (Supra), there cannot be imposition of any tax without the authority of law and such law has to be unambiguous and should prescribe the liability to pay taxes in clear terms.

23 ITA No. 81 /JP/2022 Neeraj Purohit not applicable for the assessment year under consideration i.e. 2018-19 but will apply from assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, this issue raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/04/2022. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼,l-lhrky{eh½ (Dr. S. Seethalashmi) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 19/04/2022. *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Neeraj Purohit, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- CPC, Bengaluru. 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 81/JP/2022} 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत