H. KAPADIA,J. Civil Appeal No.7771/2009 S.L.P. C No.23851/2007, Civil Appeal No.7770/2009 S.L.P. C No.17835/2008, Civil Appeal No.7765/2009 S.L.P. C No.28521/2008, Civil Appeal No.7769/2009 S.L.P. C No.6844/2008, Civil Appeal No.7767/2009 S.L.P. C No.9589/2008, Civil Appeal No.7756/2009 S.L.P. C No.9590/2008, Civil 2/ 2 Appeal No.7766/2009 S.L.P. C No.9591/2008, Civil Appeal No.7763/2009 S.L.P. C No.14363/2008, Civil Appeal No.7764/2009 S.L.P. C No.17840/2008, Civil Appeal No.7758/2009 S.L.P. C No.20012/2009, Civil Appeal No.7762/2009 S.L.P. C No.1344/2009, Civil Appeal No.7760/2009 S.L.P. C No.3759/2009, Civil Appeal No.7754/2009 S.L.P. C No.21067/2009, Civil Appeal No.7759/2009 S.L.P. C No.25174/2009, Civil Appeal No.7768/2009 S.L.P. C No.30587/2008 and Civil Appeal No.7761/2009 S.L.P. C No.1476/2009.
Delay companydoned.
A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is whether omission deletion of the second proviso to Section 43 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2003, operated with effect from 1st April, 2004, or whether it operated retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988?
Leave granted.
They represented to the Government about their hardship and, companysequently, pursuant to the Report of the Kelkar Committee, the Government introduced Finance Act, 2003, by which the second proviso stood deleted with effect from 1st April, 2004, and certain changes were also made in the first proviso by which uniformity was brought about between payment of fees, taxes, cess, etc.,
on one hand and companytribution made to Employees Provident Fund, etc.,
The lead matter in this batch of civil appeals is Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M s. Alom Extrusions Limited civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.23851 of 2007.
By Finance Act, 2003, the second proviso to Section 43 B of the Act number only got deleted but the said Finance Act, 2003, also amended the first proviso with effect from Assessment Year 2004 2005.
By the Finance Act, 2003, the amendment made in 8/ 8 the first proviso equated in terms of the benefit of deduction of tax, duty, cess and fee on the one hand with companytributions to Employees Provident Fund, superannuation fund and other welfare funds on the other.
However, the Finance Act, 2003, bringing about this uniformity came into force with effect from 1st April, 2004.
Therefore, the argument of the assessee s is that the Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature, it was number amendatory and, therefore, it applied retrospectively from 1st April, 1988, whereas the argument of the Department was that Finance Act, 2003, was amendatory and it applied prospectively, particularly when the Parliament had expressly made the Finance Act, 2003, applicable only with effect from 1st April, 2004.
According to the Department, that dichotomy companytinued upto 1st April, 2004, hence, looking to this aspect, the Parliament companysciously kept that dichotomy alive upto 1st April, 2004, by making Finance Act, 2003, companye into force only with effect from 1st April, 2004.
It was also argued on behalf of the Department that even between 1st April, 1988, and 1st April, 2004, Parliament had maintained a clear dichotomy between payment of tax, duty, cess or fee on one hand and payment of companytributions to the welfare funds on the other.
Hence, according to the Department, Finance Act, 2003 should be read as amendatory and number as curative retrospective with effect from 1st April, 1988.
