ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIZAG SEAPORT PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO and argued in support of the same.

"On a conceptual note, primary justification for such a disallowance is that such a denial of deduction is to compensate for the loss of revenue by corresponding income not being taken into account in computation of taxable income in the hands of the recipients of the payments. Such a policy motivated deduction restrictions should, therefore, not come into play when an assessee is able to establish that there is no actual loss of revenue. This disallowance does deincentivize not deducting tax at source, when such tax deductions are due, but, so far as the legal framework is concerned, this provision is not for the purpose of penalizing for the tax deduction at source lapses. There are separate penal provisions to that effect. Deincentivizing a lapse and punishing a lapse are two different things and have distinctly different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, connotations. When we appreciate the object of scheme of section 40(a)(ia), as on the statute, and to examine whether or not, on a "fair, just and equitable" interpretation of law- as is the guidance from Hon'ble Delhi High Court on interpretation of this legal provision, in our humble understanding, it could not be an "intended consequence" to disallow the expenditure, due to non deduction of tax at source, even in a situation in which corresponding income is brought to tax in the hands of the recipient. The scheme of Section 40(a)(ia), as we see it, is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed as deduction in the hands of an assessee in a situation in which income embedded in such expenditure has remained untaxed due to tax 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 15 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 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. Accordingly, we hold that 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) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004."

16 Township (P) Ltd (supra) and thereby the addition made U/s. 40(a)(ia) on this count also deserves to be deleted.

Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that the capital work-in- progress in page No. 9 of the paper book stood at Rs. 2,36,04,888/- whereas own funds included the cash generated from operations stood at Rs. 83,76,74,466/- and Rs. 38,58,79,722/- respectively. Therefore he pleaded that own funds should be assumed to be used for the capital work-in-progress and no interest disallowance is warranted.

“4.……….From the order of the ITAT, the Revenue approached this Court by way of an Appeal. After examining the entire factual matrix of the matter and the law on the subject, this Court held as under :- "If there be interest-free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available. In our opinion, the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 627 had the occasion to consider the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Woolcombers of India Ltd. (1982) 134 ITR 219 where a similar issue had arisen. Before the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have been presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were paid out of the profits of the relevant year and not out of the overdraft account for the running of the business and in these circumstances the appellant was entitled to claim the deductions. The Supreme Court noted that the argument had considerable force, but considering the fact that the contention had not been advanced earlier it did not require to be answered. It then noted that in Woolcombers of India Ltd.'s case (1982) 134 ITR 219 the Calcutta High Court had come to the conclusion that the profits were sufficient to meet the advance tax liability and the profits were deposited in the over draft account of the assessee and in such a case it should be presumed that the taxes were paid out of the profits of the year and not out of the overdraft account for the running of the business. It noted that to raise the presumption, there was sufficient material and the assessee had urged the contention before the High Court. The principle, therefore, would be that if there were funds available both interest-free and over draft

19 and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free funds generated or available with the company if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investment. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal."(emphasis supplied) 5. We find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra). The finding of fact given by the ITAT in the present case is that the Assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free securities. This factual position is not one that is disputed. In the present case, undisputedly the Assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investment in the tax-free securities. In view of this factual position, as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.(supra), it would have to be presumed that the investment made by the Assessee would be out of the interest-free funds available with the Assessee. We therefore, are unable to agree with the submission of Mr Suresh Kumar that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the Appeal of the Revenue on this ground. We do not find that question (A) gives rise to any substantial question of law and is therefore rejected.”

20 19. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 12th April, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (दुव्िूरु आर.एलरेड्डी) (एस बालाकृष्णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 12.04.2024 OKK - SPS Copy of the order forwarded to:- धनधााररती/ The Assessee–M/s. Vizag Seaport Pvt Ltd., Administrative 1. Block, S4 Gallery, Port Area, Visakhapatnam – 530035, Andhra Pradesh. राजस्ि/The Revenue –Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), 2. 2nd Floor, Direct Taxes Building, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam