2023 (6) TMI 742 - HC - Income Tax

Substantial question of law - retrospectivity of the amendment made to Section 23(b) of the Finance Act, 2017, the ground of deduction of overdue interest qua the ideal guidelines has not been considered by the Tribunal in its true perspective - HELD THAT - The facts reveal that the Tribunal was seized of three set of appeals filed by the Revenue and two pro-subjections by the assessee in respect of three assessment years i.e. 2009-2010, 2013-2014 and 2014- 2015. The aspect regarding retrospectivity was not of Section 43-D of the Finance Act, 2017, it seems from the record that the Tribunal has applied its mind to the ground raised by the appellants while the other ground of deduction of overdue interest qua RBI guidelines is also discussed. Tribunal has taken care to discuss all the issues raised before it and has rendered findings which is based primarily on facts. References may have been made of certain legal provisions but the adjudication and rendering of findings are essentially facts-centric. It is settled principle of law that an appeal before this Court u/s 260-A of the Act can be entertained only and any substantial question of law as involved which does not appears to be the case herein.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging a common final order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main issues revolve around the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under sections 147/148, re-verification of books of accounts, correctness of quantum of overdue interest, retrospective application of an amendment in section 43-D, deduction of overdue interest under RBI guidelines, and the allowability of overdue interest under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act.

Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer (Section 147/148):
The Tribunal's decision on the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 147/148 and the issue of notice under section 148 was questioned. The Tribunal's finding that the assumption of jurisdiction was valid and the reason to believe escapement of income was bonafide was upheld by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was based on facts and not solely on legal provisions.

Re-verification of Books of Accounts:
The Tribunal's decision to set aside the assessment and refer the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-verification of books of accounts due to suspicion of excessive claim of overdue interest was examined. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's involvement in verifying the quantum of overdue interest, when there was no dispute on it, exceeded its jurisdiction under section 254 of the Act. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was not based on substantial legal grounds.

Correctness of Quantum of Overdue Interest:
The Tribunal's determination of excess claim for overdue interest and its finding that such claim was not perverse was reviewed. The High Court analyzed whether overdue interest, specifically interest on non-performing assets, was allowable under section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was not supported by substantial legal reasoning.

Retrospective Application of Amendment in Section 43-D:
The issue of retrospectivity of the amendment in section 43-D of the Finance Act, 2017, regarding the insertion of "cooperative bank" was considered. The High Court clarified that the Tribunal's decision that the amendment was retrospective only from 01.05.2017 and not from 01.04.2007 was not legally sound. The Court highlighted the importance of correct interpretation of statutory provisions.

Deduction of Overdue Interest under RBI Guidelines:
The Tribunal's finding that the appellant could not support its claim of deduction of overdue interest under RBI guidelines and section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act was examined. The High Court emphasized the contradictory nature of the appellant's claims and the need for adherence to legal provisions. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision lacked legal coherence and proper analysis.

Final Disposition:
After considering the arguments of the parties and the findings of the Tribunal, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law was raised in the appeals. As per settled legal principles, an appeal under Section 260-A can only be entertained if a substantial question of law is involved, which was not the case here. Therefore, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed all the appeals in limine.