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

The Appellant-Revenue raised 3 grounds of which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] r.w.s. Rule 8D in the facts and circumstances of the case.

At the outset, we note that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee company has not received any dividend income during the year under consideration, but, however, the Assessing Officer noted that the financials of the assessee company that it has investments capable of earning dividend income. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer determined the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D at ₹.5,87,37,582/- and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of ₹.5,87,37,582/- made under section 14A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

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).

Heard both the parties, perused the material available on record. We note that the Explanation to section 14A of the Act was inserted

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:

This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2022. 6. It is also proposed to amend sub-section (1) of the said section, so as to include a non-obstante clause in respect of other provisions of the Income-tax Act and provide that no deduction shall be allowed in relation to exempt income, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act.

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."

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:

In our view the 1999 Explanation could not apply to assessment years for the simple reason that it had not come into effect then. Prior to introducing the 1999 Explanation, the decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] was followed in 1989 by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario [(2000) 241 ITR 314 (Gau)]. It found that the 1983 Explanation had been given effect from 1.4.1979 whereas the year in question in that case was 1976-77 and said: (ITR p. 318)

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:

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].)

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)

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

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29th August, 2025 at Chennai. (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 29.08.2025