JUDGMENT HARSHA DEVANI, J. 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant revenue has called in question the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1753/Ahd/2005. 2. While admitting the appeal, this court by an order dated 26.4.2011 had formulated the following question of law:- Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,67,514/- made under section 43B of the Income Tax Act? 3. The assessment year is 2001-2002 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year 2000-2001. The Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act wherein he had, inter alia, made disallowance of Rs. 5,67,514/- under section 43B of the Act as the assessee had failed to make provident fund contribution payments on due dates. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who observed that the assessee had made payment of provident fund contribution before the due date of filing the return of income for the year and held that the payment of P.F. amount was allowable expenditure. He, accordingly, deleted the disallowance. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal but did not succeed. 4. Heard Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Divatia, learned counsel for the respondent. In the light of the view that the court is inclined to take in the matter it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. 5. Vide Finance Act, 2003, the second proviso to section 43B of the Act came to be deleted and the first proviso came to be amended with effect from assessment year 2004-05. The amended first proviso provided that nothing contained in that section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return. The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-III vs. Alom Extrusions Limited, (2009) 319 ITR 306 held that the second proviso to section 43B of the Act, which came into effect from 1st April, 2004 is retrospectively applicable with effect from 1st April, 1988. The controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the above decision which would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, the view adopted by the Tribunal being in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,67,514/- made under section 43B of the Act. The question, accordingly stands answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.