THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. M/S. ORYX FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD. MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/1/2015HC Bombay01 July 2017Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI13 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the phrase 'tax in arrears' as envisaged in Section 221 of the Income Tax Act does not include the interest component. The Court reasoned that tax, penalty, and interest are distinct concepts under the Act. The definition of 'tax' under Section 2(43) does not include penalty or interest. Furthermore, Section 156, regarding notice of demand, separately refers to tax, interest, and penalty. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs. Custodian and others, which held that tax, penalty, and interest are different concepts and the definition of 'tax' does not include penalty or interest. The Court found that the case of CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala relied upon by the Revenue was not applicable as it only dealt with the mandatory nature of interest, not its inclusion in 'tax in arrears' for penalty calculation. Consequently, the Assessing Officer can impose penalty for default in payment of tax, but the penalty shall not exceed the amount of 'tax in arrears', which does not include interest payable under Section 220(2). The substantial questions of law were answered against the Appellant (Revenue), and the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is appealing a Bombay High Court judgment that upheld a Tribunal order. The assessee, M/s. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd., had its income tax return processed under Section 143(1), resulting in a demand of Rs. 1,64,90,573 and a penalty of Rs. 1,19,30,677 under Section 221(1) for non-payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that the interest component should be excluded when levying penalty under Section 221(1) and that the penalty levied exceeded the tax component. The Tribunal, in turn, remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing quantification of penalty under Section 221(1) excluding the interest component.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that penalty under Section 221(1) is to be imposed only on the tax component, excluding interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, given that Section 221(1) does not explicitly exclude interest from the calculation of penalty? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty imposed in respect of arrears of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, considering that Section 221(1) empowers the Assessing Officer to impose any amount of penalty up to the amount of 'tax in arrears', and the term 'tax in arrears' should encompass interest? 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 221(1) in respect of arrears of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, by appreciating that interest under these sections is mandatory and therefore an integral part of tax, as held in CIT vs. Anjum Ghaswala & Others and Karanvir Singh Gosssal vs. CIT and Another? Assessee's Contention: The Revenue's counsel argued that the term 'tax in arrears' under Section 221(1) includes the interest component, as interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is mandatory and forms part of the arrears of tax. Reliance was placed on CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. (2001) 252 ITR 0001. Revenue's Contention: The Assessee's counsel supported the Tribunal's order, arguing that tax, interest, and penalty are separate components, and the term 'tax' does not include penalty or interest. Reliance was placed on Harshad Shantilal Mehta vs. Custodian and others (1998) 231 ITR 871 and CIT vs. P.B. Hathiramani (1994) 207 ITR 483.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 221(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 220(2),Section 156,Section 2(43)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax­8, Room No.214, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ] ] ] ] Appellant Versus M/s. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Lok Bharati Complex, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059 PAN : AAACO0662K ] ] ] ] ] ] ] Respondent • Mr.Tejveer Singh for the Appellant. • Mr.Vishnu S. Hadade for the Respondent. CORAM   : S.V. GANGAPURWALA  AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. RESERVED ON : 15th JUNE, 2017. PRONOUNCED ON : 01st  JULY, 2017 JUDGDMENT (PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) : 1] Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 1/13 CNR No : HCBM020200692014 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 2] The Revenue has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal thereby partly allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3] The Income Tax Return of the Respondent­Assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (for sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), demand was raised for Rs.1,64,90,573/­ and penalty of Rs.1,19,30,677/­ was imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act for default by Assessee in the payment of demand. Aggrieved thereby the Assessee filed Appeal before the Commissioner of Income­Tax (Appeals)­17, Mumbai [for short “CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) under its order   dated   15/03/2010   deleted   the   penalty   imposed   by   the Assessing Officer holding that interest component has to be excluded while levying penalty under Section 221(1) and since the penalty levied exceeded the tax component, it set­aside the order levying penalty. Aggrieved thereby the Department filed a appeal before the Income  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal,   Mumbai  [for  short  “ITAT”]. The ITAT held that while levying penalty under Section 221(1) of the Act 2/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 interest component is not to be considered and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer with the direction to quantify the amount of penalty in accordance with provisions of Section 221(1) of the Act. The Department has assailed the said order in the present appeal. 4] The   Department   has   framed   following   questions purportedly as substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court. 1) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in   law,   the   ITAT   is   justified   in   holding   the   penalty u/s.221(1) is to be imposed in respect of only the tax excluding   interest   u/s.234A,   234B   &   234C   without appreciating that section 221(1) does not contain any such condition that the penalty imposed under the said section should   be   a   percentage   of   only   the   tax   excluding   the interest. 2) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting penalty imposed in respect   of   arrears   of   interest   u/s.234A,   234B   &   234C without appreciating that Section 221(1), the Assessing Officer is empowered to impose any amount of penalty 'so, however that the total amount of penalty does not exceed the amount of tax in arrears and thus the term used in the said section is tax in arrears and not 'tax', as erroneously 3/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 held by the Hon'ble Tribunal. 3) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s.221(1) in respect of arrears of interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C, without appreciating that, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum Ghaswala & and   Another,   interest   u/s.234A,   234B   &   234C   is mandatory in nature and therefore by the ratio of the above cited decisions interest is an integral part of tax. 5] Mr.Tejveer Singh, the learned counsel for the Appellant strenuously   contends   that   the   Commissioner   (Appeals)   and   the Tribunal have failed to consider Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act (herein referred to as “the Act”) in its correct perspective. The terminology “tax in arrears” would include the interest component also. The payment of interest under Section 234(A), 234(B) and 234(C) is mandatory and the same would form part of the arrears of tax. The learned counsel to substantiate his contention relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., reported in (2001) 252 ITR 0001. No powers are given for waiver of the interest. 4/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 6] According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, since interest forms part of amount chargeable under Section 156 of the Act, the penalty under Section 221(1) is also imposable. The order of the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to restrict levy of penalty only to the Tax component excluding the interest under Section 234(A), 234(B) and 234(C) of the Act is per­se erroneous. 7] Mr.Hadade,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   Respondent supports the order of the Tribunal and submits that tax, interest and penalty are separate components. The term “tax” does not include penalty or interest. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in   a   case   of  Harshad   Shantilal   Mehta   vs. 8] We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also have gone through 5/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities. 9] Before we proceed to advert to the arguments of the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 2(43) and 221 of the Act. Tax is defined under Section 2(43) of the Act. “Tax” in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1965, and any subsequent assessment year means income­tax chargeable under the provisions of this   Act,   and  in   relation   to  any   other   assessment  year income­tax and super­tax chargeable under the provisions of this Act prior to the aforesaid date [and in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st  day of April, 2006, and any subsequent assessment year includes the fringe benefit tax payable under section 115 WA. Penalty payable when tax in default “221. (1)  When an assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax, he shall in addition to the  amount   of   the   arrears   and  the  amount   of  interest payable under sub­section (2) of section 220, be liable, by way of penalty, to pay such amount as the [Assessing] Officer may direct, and in the case of a continuing default, such further amount or amounts as the [Assessing] Officer may, from time to time, direct, so, however, that the total 6/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 amount of penalty does not exceed the amount of tax in arrears: Provided that before levying any such penalty, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard: [Provided further  that where the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the [Assessing] Officer that the default was for good and sufficient reasons, no penalty shall be levied under this section.] [Explanation—For   the   removal   of   doubt,   it   is   hereby declared that an assessee shall not cease to be liable to any penalty under this sub­section merely by reason of the fact that before the levy of such penalty he has paid the tax.] (2) Where as a result of any final order the amount of tax, with respect to the default in payment of which the penalty was levied, has been wholly reduced, the penalty levied shall be cancelled and the amount of penalty paid shall be refunded.” 10] The   moot   question   for   consideration   in   the   present matter is whether the phraseology “amount of tax in arrears” as envisaged in Section 221 of the Act would in addition to the tax include within its fold the interest component also. 11] The   definition   of   the   “Tax”   u/Sec.2(43)   read   in   its 7/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 entirety suggests that the “tax” means income­tax, super­tax and/or the fringe benefit tax, as the case may be chargeable under the provisions of the Act. The definition of tax does not take within its fold the interest component. 12] The definition of “interest” as envisaged under Section 2(28­A) of the Act would not be relevant in the present matter. As the said definition is restricted to the interest payable in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred. 13] It is the elementary rule of interpretation that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Courts are to interpret the same in its literal sense and not to give a meaning that would cause violence to the provisions of the statute. Each word in the statute should be assign the meaning as per the context. 14] The provision imposing penalty will have to be strictly construed. The statute being fiscal and the provisions of Section 221 dealing with imposition of penalty naturally shall have to be strictly construed. Strict construction is a construction in which application 8/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 of a provision used is limited by words used, so that anything which is not clearly included within the scope of the language is treated as excluded. 15] Reading Section 221 in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that the aspect of default in payment of tax and the amount of interest payable are treated as distinct and separate components. The section categorically and specifically states that when an Assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making payment of tax, he shall in addition to the amount of arrears and the amount of interest payable   under   Sub­Section   2   of   Section   220,   be   liable,   to   pay penalty, however the amount of penalty does not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. The terminology “default in making a payment of tax and amount of interest payable” are considered to be separate for imposition of penalty and penalty is to be levied on account of default in making a payment of tax. However, the total amount of penalty shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. The said penalty for non payment of the tax is in addition to the levy of interest under Sub­Section 2 of Section 220. Under no principle of interpretation, the arrears of tax as laid down in the said Section 9/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 would include the amount of interest payable under Sub­Section 2 of Section 220. The amount of penalty will have to be restricted on the arrears   of   tax,   which   would   not   include   the   interest   component charged under Section 220(2) of the Act. 16] Reference   can   be   had   to   Section   156   viz.   notice   of demand. In Section 156 also tax, interest, penalty, fine are separately referred to. Even a notice of demand issued under Section 156 in 'Form No.7' specifies tax and interest as separate components.

17] Second proviso to Section 221 and explanation would also be relevant. The second proviso to Section 221(1) states that, if the Assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the default was for good and sufficient reason, no penalty shall be levied   under   the   said   section.   Sub­Section   2   further   says   that, whereas result of final order, the amount of tax with respect to the default in the payment of which penalty was levied has been wholly reduced, the penalty levied shall be cancelled and the amount of penalty paid shall be refunded. This would suggest that the payment of penalty is directly commensurate with the default in payment of 10/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 tax and not of interest. Reference can also be had to the judgment of question No.5 as under; “Question No.5 ­ Whether "taxes" under  Section 11(2)(a) would include interest or penalty as well?” 18] While   answering   the   said   question,   the   Apex   Court observed thus; “We   are   concerned   in   the   present   case   with   penalty   and interest under the Income Tax Act. Tax, penalty and interest are   different   concepts   under   the  Income   Tax   Act.   The definition   of   "tax"   under  Section   2(43)  does   not   include penalty   or   interest.   Similarly,   under  Section   156,   it   is provided that when any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand as prescribed. The provisions for imposition   of   penalty   and   interest   are   distinct   from   the provisions for imposition of tax. The learned Special Court judge, after examining various authorities in paragraphs 51 to   70   of   his   judgment,   has   come   to   the   conclusion   that neither penalty nor interest can be considered as tax under Section   11(2)(a).   We   agree   with   the   reasoning   and conclusion drawn by the Special Court in this connection”. 11/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 19] The Apex Court observed that the definition of tax under Section 2(43) does not include penalty or interest. Tax, penalty and interest are different concepts under Income Tax Act. The provisions for imposition of penalty and interest are distinct from provisions for imposition of tax. The Apex Court agreed with the reasoning and the conclusion   drawn   by   the   Special   Court   that   neither   penalty   nor interest can be considered as tax under Section 11(2)(a) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The said section dealt with the priorities for distribution and   liability   specified   under   Clause   'A'   i.e.   All   Revenues,   Taxes, 12/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 20] 21] In view of the aforesaid discussion and on reading the provisions of Section 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” as detailed under Section 2(43), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn   is   that   the   phraseology   “tax   in   arrears”   as   envisaged   in Sec.221 of the Act would not take within its realm the interest component. It would be abundantly clear that the Assessing Officer can impose penalty for default in making the payment of tax, but the same shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. Tax in arrears would not include the interest payable under Section 220(2) of the Act.   In   the   result,   the   substantial   question   of   law  are   answered against the Appellant. The Appeal stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.)                          (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) 13/13 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →