9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o non-deduction of tax at source by the assessee - section 40(a)(ia) cannot be seen as intended to be a penal provision to punish the lapses of non-deduction of tax at source from payments for expenditure- particularly when the recipients have taken into account income embedded in these payments, paid due taxes thereon and filed income tax returns in accordance with the law. A curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so specifically, the insertion of second proviso must be given retrospective effect from the point of time when the related legal provision was introduced - it cannot subscribe to the view that it could have been an "intended consequence" to punish the assessees for non-deduction of tax at source by declining the deduction in respect of related payments, even when the corresponding income is duly brought to tax - That will be going much beyond the obvious intention of the section - the insertion of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 1st April, 2005, being the date from which sub clause (ia) of section 40(a) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of interest/finances charges amounting to ₹ 53,75,972/- are not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance of this amount was made by the AO without deduction of TDS and added back to the returned income. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the addition made by the AO sustained, which is under challenge before this Tribunal. 2.2. If the observation made in the assessment order, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, cases relied upon by the assessee and the material facts available on record, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, before adverting further, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the order of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agrawal (supra) for ready reference and analysis:- 1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, calls into question correctness of learned Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 2nd September, 2013, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter to as the Act ), for the assessment year 2006-07, upholding the disallowance of ₹ 5,01,872 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2. The issue in appeal lies in a rather narrow compass of undis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso . In other words, as long as the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot come into play either. To understand the effect of this proviso, it is useful to refer to first proviso to section 201(1), which is also introduced by the Finance Act 2012and effective1st July 2012, and which provides that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident-(i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the considered view that the objective sought to be achieved by bringing out section 40(a)(ia) is the augmentation of TDS provisions and went on to add that If, in attaining this main objective of augmentation of such provisions, the assessee suffers disallowance of any amount in the year of default, which is otherwise deductible, the legislature allowed it to continue . It was further observed that this is the cost which parliament has awarded to those assessees who fail to comply with the relevant provisions by considering overall objective of boosting TDS compliance (Emphasis by underlining supplied by us). In other words, the amendment was held to be prospective because, in the wisdom of the special bench, the 2010 amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by inserting first proviso thereto, which is what the special bench was dealing with, was an intended consequence of the provision of Section 40(a)(ia). 6. However, the stand so taken by the special bench was disapproved by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). While doing so, Their Lordships observed that, The object of introduction of Section 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that TDS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x deduction at source compliance is not an end in itself, so far as the scheme of this legal provision is concerned, but is only a mean of recovering due taxes on income embedded in the payments made by the assessee. That s how, as we have seen a short while ago, Hon ble Delhi High Court has visualized the scheme of things as evident from Their Lordships reference to augmentation of recoveries in the context of loss of revenue and depriving the Government of the tax due and payable . 8. With the benefit of this guidance from Hon ble Delhi High Court, in view of legislative amendments made from time to time, which throw light on what was actually sought to be achieved by this legal provision, and in the light of the above analysis of the scheme of the law, we are of the considered view that section 40(a)(ia) cannot be seen as intended to be a penal provision to punish the lapses of non deduction of tax at source from payments for expenditure- particularly when the recipients have taken into account income embedded in these payments, paid due taxes thereon and filed income tax returns in accordance with the law. As a corollary to this proposition, in our considered view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to tax withholding lapse. The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee s tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss to the exchequer. Now that the legislature has been compassionate enough to cure these shortcomings of provision, and thus obviate the unintended hardships, such an amendment in law, in view of the well settled legal position to the effect that a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so specifically, the insertion of second proviso must be given retrospective effect from the point of time when the related legal provision was introduced. In view of these discussions, as also for the detailed reasons set out earlier, we cannot subscribe to the view that it could have been an intended consequence to punish the assessees for non deduction of tax at source by declining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t AYs also stand answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 5. The other issue urged by the Revenue during the course of arguments pertains to the retrospectivity of the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) of Act which reads as under: Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso 6.When it was pointed out to learned counsel for the Appellant that no question as such has been sought to be urged by the Revenue in the memorandum of appeal, learned counsel stated that an application has been filed to amend the memorandum of appeal to include such a question and that perhaps the said application is lying under objection. 7. Notwithstanding the above, the Court has heard learned counsel for the Revenue on the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The first proviso to Section 210 (1) of the Act has been inserted to benefit the Assessee. It also states that where a person fails to deduct tax at source on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident such person shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident has furnished his return of income under Section 139 of the Act. No doubt, there is a mandatory requirement under Section 201 to deduct tax at source under certain contingencies, but the intention of the legislature is not to treat the Assessee as a person in default subject to the fulfilment of the conditions as stipulated in the first proviso to Section 201(1). The insertion of the second proviso to Section 40(a) (ia) also requires to be viewed in the same manner. This again is a proviso intended to benefit the Assessee. The effect of the legal fiction created thereby is to treat the Assessee as a person not in default of deducting tax at source under certain contingencies. 12. Relevant to the case in hand, what is common to both the provisos to Section 40 (a) (ia) and Section 210 (1) of the Act is that the as long as the payee/resid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withholding lapses by the assessee. It is not, in our considered view, a penalty for tax withholding lapse but it is a sort of compensatory deduction restriction for an income going untaxed due to tax withholding lapse. The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss to the exchequer. Now that the legislature has been compassionate enough to cure these shortcomings of provision, and thus obviate the unintended hardships, such an amendment in law, in view of the well settled legal position to the effect that a curative amendment to avoid unintended consequences is to be treated as retrospective in nature even though it may not state so specifically, the insertion of second proviso must be given retrospective effect from the point of time when the related legal provision was introduced. In view of these discussions, as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
