Finance Bill 2022 as introduced on 01.02.22 reads at the face page 'Finance Bill 2022, A Bill to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2022-2023.'
But many clauses of that bill are effective for FY 2019-20/ 2020-21/ 2021-22 and even before.
Then why the finance bill writes the above captioned statement ?
Some times FM proposes some clause to be effective from earlier period than the usually proposed Ass. Year. The them is called retrospective effect. The specific clause which are implemented with retrospective effect are very few as compared to the aggregate proposal, and are specifically mentioned in the bill.
Finance bill 2021 is relating to changes in financial proposal for FY 2021-22. Clause 8 & 9 of this finance bill is towards amendment of section 36 & 43B of income tax act regarding dis allowance of EPF employee contribution which is effective from AY 2021-22. i.e FY 2020-21.Many court verdicts/ experts say that this change is prospective.
The bill is for FY 2021-22 but this change is from FY 2020-21. Is it not retrospective?
Moreover, we have received IT demand for FY 2020-21 towards this dis allowance. When this change is declared in finance bill 2021, asking to deposit demand money for previous year is not justified. There was no fault at our end. Can we go for appeal?
For your reference hereby enclosed a caselaw favoring appellant on such issue...
Case Name : Suman Solanki Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Appeal Number : ITA No. 124/JP/2022 Date of Judgement/Order : 12/05/2022 Related Assessment Year : 2018-19 Courts : All ITAT ITAT Jaipur
Chirag N Shah & Associates
Mumbai
CA Inter
View Details
CAclubindia
