1. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 27.09.2021. The relevant assessment year is 2018-2019.
2. The grounds raised read as follows:-
"1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] 1 National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC for short] is not justified in upholding the determination of total loss of appellant in the Intimation u/s. 143[1] of the Act, at Rs. 5,87,31,110/- as against the returned loss of Rs. 6,06,66,516/-, on account of the disallowance of Rs. 19,35,406/- made u/s. 36(1)[va] of the Act, based upon the details in the Tax Audit Report of the Chartered Accountant in Form 3CD, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
3. The learned CIT[A] 1 NFAC ought to have appreciated that the aforesaid disallowance of Rs. 19,35,406/- in respect of the belated payments of the Employee's share of PF and ESI was allowable having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Limited reported in MANU/KA/0136/2014 : 366 ITR 408 [Karl since the same has been paid before the due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and hence, the disallowance made ought to have been deleted.
4. The learned CIT[A] 1 NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 438 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 was clarificatory 1 declaratory in the nature and therefore, these amendments were retrospective in operation under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
4.1 The learned CIT[A] 1 NFAC ought to have appreciated that the aforesaid amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 cannot be regarded as retrospective in nature as they were not in the nature of a beneficial legislation to remove intended hardships cast on the assessee and therefore, the disallowance sustained on this basis is opposed to law and facts of the appellant's case.
4.2 The learned CIT[A] 1 NF AC is not justified in refusing the follow the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in favour of the assessee on the ground that the said judgment was rendered before the aforesaid clarificatory amendments made under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs."
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
4. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s.