1996 (9) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of additional income-tax u/s 143(1A) when adjustments result in a lesser loss.
2. Requirement of total income chargeable to tax for the levy of additional income-tax.
3. Interpretation of section 143(1A)(a) in line with the charging provisions of the Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Levy of additional income-tax u/s 143(1A) when adjustments result in a lesser loss
The petitioner argued that when a return of loss is accepted after adjustments and results in a continued loss to a lesser extent, no additional income-tax is exigible. The court noted that the levy under section 143(1A)(a) is not actually a levy of additional income-tax but a calculation of a sum equal to twenty percent of the tax that would have been chargeable on the amount of the adjustments, as if it had been the total income of such person. This sum is calculated for the default committed by the assessee in showing a higher loss.

Issue 2: Requirement of total income chargeable to tax for the levy of additional income-tax
The petitioner contended that unless there is a total income chargeable to tax, there is no scope for the levy of additional income-tax. The court rejected this argument, stating that the impugned provision of law does not levy income-tax on the loss suffered by the assessee. Instead, it directs the calculation of a sum based on adjustments, which is referred to as additional income-tax for convenience.

Issue 3: Interpretation of section 143(1A)(a) in line with the charging provisions of the Act
The petitioner suggested that section 143(1A)(a) should be read down to align with the charging provisions of the Act. The court held that it is not necessary for the impugned provision to be in tune with the charging section because there is no levy of income-tax under the provision. The court emphasized that the necessity for reading down a section arises only if the court is faced with striking down the provision of law. The court concluded that the plain reading of section 143(1A)(a) shows that even if a loss is reduced, a penalty is incurred and calculated as specified.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the arguments based on the necessity of total income chargeable to tax and the interpretation of section 143(1A)(a) were based on misconceptions. The court upheld the provision as intra vires and emphasized the importance of curtailing defaults by imposing penalties. The court also noted that remedies under sections 154 and 264 are available for challenging the correctness of adjustments.