ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. AMBATTUR CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUVALLUR

The ld. AR Shri Vinay Jain, CA drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. [2022] 141 Taxmann.com 289 (Delhi) and submits that the Hon’ble High Court, in similar set of facts, held the amendment by inserting Explanation through Finance Bill, 2022 is applicable only from 01.04.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2022-23, but, not to earlier years. He argued that the assessment year under consideration is 2011- 12 and the Finance Act, 2022, as relied on by the ld. DR with reference to Explanation inserted under section 14A of the Act is not applicable to the year under consideration, as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra).

However a perusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates that the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years. The relevant extract of Clauses 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2022 are reproduced hereinbelow: "4. In order to make the intention of the legislation clear and to make it free from any misinterpretation, it is proposed to insert an Explanation to section 14A of the Act to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where exempt income has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such exempt income.

This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years."

The reasoning of the Gauhati High Court was expressly affirmed by this Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] . These decisions are thus authorities for the proposition that the 1983 Explanation expressly introduced with effect from a particular date would not effect the earlier assessment years.

In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4-2000, the substituted Explanation would read: "Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the income of the nature referred to in this clause payable for-- (a) service rendered in India; and (b) the rest period or leave period which is preceded and succeeded by services rendered in India and forms part of the service contract of employment, shall be regarded as income earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change.

The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to be clarificatory or that it removed whatever ambiguity there was in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, it did not operate in respect of periods which were prior to 1-4-1979. It was held that since the Explanation came into force from 1-4-1979, it could not be relied on for any purpose for an anterior period.

In the appeal preferred from the decision by the Revenue before this Court, the Revenue did not question this reading of the Explanation by the Kerala High Court, but restricted itself to a question of fact viz. whether the Tribunal had correctly found that the salary of the assessee was paid by a foreign company. This Court dismissed the appeal holding that it was a question of fact. (CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1998) 8 SCC 608].) 15. Given this legislative history of Section 9(1)(ii), we can only assume that it was deliberately introduced with effect from 1-4- 2000 and therefore intended to apply prospectively [See CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 485, 494 (para 18) : (1995) 215 ITR 165] . It was also understood as such by CBDT which issued Circular No. 779 dated 14-9-1999 containing Explanatory Notes on the provisions of the Finance Act, 1999 insofar as it related to direct taxes. It said in paras 5.2 and 5.3. "5.2 The Act has expanded the existing Explanation which states that salary paid for services rendered in India shall be regarded as income earned in India, so as to specifically provide that any salary payable for the rest period or leave period which is both preceded and succeeded by service in India and forms part of the service contract of employment will also be regarded as income earned in India.

The departmental understanding of the effect of the 1999 Amendment even if it were assumed not to bind the respondents under Section 119 of the Act, nevertheless affords a reasonable construction of it, and there is no reason why we should not adopt it.

As was affirmed by this Court in Goslino Mario [(2000) 10 SCC 165 : (2000) 241 ITR 312] a cardinal principle of the tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. (See also Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67] .) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598: AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24] . If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506] . But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are "it is declared" or "for the removal of doubts"." (emphasis supplied) 8. On careful reading of the above decision, we find the facts and circumstances before the Hon’ble High Court are similar to the facts on hand, since the year under consideration before us is 2011-12 and has no applicability of Explanation inserted to section 14A of the Act by Finance Bill, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

With regard to the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act is concerned, on perusal of the impugned order, we note that by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257 (Madras), the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that where there is no exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to such assumed income, and is justified. We find no reason to interfere with order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29th August, 2025 at Chennai.