Ita/11/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Trivandrum v. G.vasanthi,Kalluthazham,Kollam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 ITA.No. 11 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2007 IN ITA. 1064/COCH/05 & ITA.1063/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/ APPELLANT ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- G.VASANTHI,SURESH NIVAS,KALLUTHAZHAM, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.11 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whetherthe Tribunal was justified in cancelling the disallowance made underSection 43(B) on payments to Employees' Provident Fund, WelfareFund etc. Admittedly there was amendment liberalising Section 43(B)whereunder payments made upto date of filing of return were madeadmissible deductions. The assessment in this case falls for periodprior to the amendment and the Tribunal found that the provision hasretrospective effect. Even though Tribunal cannot give retrospectiveeffect to statutory provisions or Rules, since the purpose of amendmentis to bring down the rigour of law and the assessee is otherwise eligible for the deduction, we feel we should not reverse the order of theTribunal on technicality. Consequently we dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms C.K.ABDUL REHIMJudge