Suman Chauhan, Panchkula V. ITO Ward 4, Panchkula

ITA 365/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7820 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SUDERSHAN
• Section: 43B; 250; 139(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठच瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ च瀃डीगढ़ 瀈यायपीठ ‘‘बी बीबी बी.’’, च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़च瀃डीगढ़ च瀃डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपील अपीलअपील अपील सं संसं सं./ ITA No. 365/CHD/2021 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Ms. Suman Chauhan, House No. 42, Sector 12-A, Panchkula. बनाम VS The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore. 瀡थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: ACBPC6792Q अपीलाथ牸/Appellant 灹瀄यथ牸/Respondent िनधा榁琇रती क琉 ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma, CA राज瀡व क琉 ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Arvind Sudershan, Sr.DR तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.01.2022 उदघोषणा क琉 तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2022 VIRTUAL HEARING आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/ORDER PER DIVA SINGH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 27.10.2021 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the CIT(A) (NFAC i.e. National Faceless Appeal Centre) Delhi pertaining to 2019-20 assessment year. 2. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, appearing on behalf of the assessee relied upon the order of the ITAT in ITA 255/CHD/2021 in the case of M/s CZAR FAUCETS LIMITED, Chandigarh ( copy available at pages 5 to 9). It was his submission that the ITA-365/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 Page 2 of 4 payment though paid late in terms of the specific act was made well within time of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, it was his prayer that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 3. The ld. Sr.DR relied upon the impugned order. 4. 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. 1,13,655/- 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 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 Hyderabad Bench in the case of Crescent Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 1952/Hyd/2018 but also consistent orders of the Chandigarh Bench. It is seen that all along the Co- ITA-365/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 Page 3 of 4 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, we find that the claim of the assessee is to be allowed in the year under consideration which is 2019-20 assessment year. The impugned order, accordingly, is set aside and the AO is directed to delete the disallowance. The appeal of the ITA-365/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2019-20 Page 4 of 4 assessee is allowed. Said order was pronounced in the presence of the parties via Webex. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 28 th February,2022. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (DIVA SINGH) लेखा लेखालेखा लेखा सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Accountant Member 瀈याियक 瀈याियक瀈याियक 瀈याियक सद瀡य सद瀡यसद瀡य सद瀡य/ Judicial Member “Poonam” आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸/ The Appellant 2. 灹瀄यथ牸/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु猴/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु猴 (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च瀃डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड榁 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar