M/S VASU DEVELOPERS,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4),HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

We have heard the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the Assessee made a prayer before us at the time of hearing that without adjudicating on the issue ITA.2077/Kol/2013-M/s. Vastu Developers- A.Y.2006-07 2 whether the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) could have been made in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this appeal can be decided, if a direction is given by the Tribunal to the AO to verify if the payees have declared the receipt from the Assessee in their return of income and if they have so declared then the addition u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act should be deleted by the AO. The above submission was made in the context of the following amendments to the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act. With a view to liberalize provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act Finance Act 2012 brought amendment w.e.f 01.04.2013 as under. The following second proviso was inserted in sub-clause (ia) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 : “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.”

Since provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) as amended by Finance Act, 2012 is linked to Section 201 of the Act, in which a proviso was inserted, it is necessary to look into those provisions which read thus: “Sec.201: (1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company – (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tax, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax: Provided 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 ITA.2077/Kol/2013-M/s. Vastu Developers- A.Y.2006-07 3 (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed: 8. Memorandum explaining the provisions while introducing Finance Bill, 2012 provides the justification of the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) in the following words:- “In order to rationalise the provisions of disallowance on account of non- deduction of tax from the payments made to a resident payee, it is proposed to amend section 40(a)(ia) to provide that where an assessee makes payment of the nature specified in the said section to a resident payee without deduction of tax and is not deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) on account of payment of taxes by the payee, then, for the purpose of allowing deduction of such sum, 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.”

The provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act are meant to ensure that the Assessee’s perform their obligation to deduct tax at source in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Such compliance will ensure revenue collection without much hassle. When the object sought to be achieved by those provisions are found to be achieved, it would be unjust to disallowance legitimate business expenses of an Assessee. Despite due collection of taxes due, if disallowance of genuine business expenses are made than that would be unjust enrichment on the part of the Government as the payee would have also paid the taxes on such income. In order to remove this anomaly, this amendment has been introduced. In case of payment to non-resident, the government does not have any other mechanism to recover the due taxes. Hence, no amendment was made in section 40(a)(i). The legislature has not given blanket deduction under section 40(a)(ia). The deduction as per amended section will be allowed only if the - (i) payee has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) payee has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) payee has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, ITA.2077/Kol/2013-M/s. Vastu Developers- A.Y.2006-07 4 and the payer furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed.

The question is as to whether the amendment made as above is prospective or retrospective w.e.f. 1.4.2005 when the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) were introduced. Keeping in view the purpose behind the proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it can be said to be declaratory and curative in nature and therefore, should be given 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. In CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had to deal with the question, whether omission (deletion) of the second proviso to s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2003, operated w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, or whether it operated retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1988? Prior to Finance Act, 2003, the second proviso to s. 43B of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") restricted the deduction in respect of any sum payable by an employer by way of contribution to provident fund/superannuation fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees, unless it stood paid within the specified due date. According to the second proviso, the payment made by the employer towards contribution to provident fund or any other welfare fund was allowable as deduction, if paid before the date for filing the return of income and necessary evidence of such payment was enclosed with the return of income. In other words, if contribution stood paid after the date for filing of the return, it stood disallowed. This resulted in great hardship to the employers. They represented to the Government about their hardship and, consequently, pursuant to the report of the Kelkar Committee, the Government introduced Finance Act, 2003, by which the second proviso stood deleted w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, and certain changes were also made in the first proviso by which uniformity was brought about between payment of fees, taxes, cess, etc., on one hand and contribution made to Employees' Provident Fund, etc., on the other.

According to the Department, the omission of the second proviso giving relief to the assessee(s) [employer(s)] operated only w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, whereas, according ITA.2077/Kol/2013-M/s. Vastu Developers- A.Y.2006-07 5 to the assessee(s)-employer(s), the said Finance Act, 2003, to the extent indicated above, operated w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 (retrospectively). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the deletion of the second proviso was retrospective w.e.f.1.4.2004. The Court considered the scheme of the Act and the historical background and the object of introduction of the provisions of S. 43B. The Court also referred to the earlier amendments made in 1988 with introduction of the first and second provisos. The Court also noted further amendment made in 1989 in the second proviso dealing with the items covered in S. 43B(b) (i.e., contribution to employees welfare funds). After considering the same, the Court was of the view that it was clear that prior to the amendment of 2003, the employer was entitled to deduction only if the contribution stands credited on or before the due date given in the Provident Fund Act on account of second proviso to S. 43B. The situation created further difficulties and as a result of representations made by the industry, the amendment of 2003 was carried out which deleted the second proviso and also made first proviso applicable to contribution to employees welfare funds referred to in S. 43B(b). “15. We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons : firstly, as stated above, s. 43B (main section), which stood inserted by Finance Act, 1983, w.e.f. 1st April, 1984, expressly commences with a non obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by making a book entry based on mercantile system of accounting. At the same time, s. 43B (main section) made it mandatory for the Department to grant deduction in computing the income under s. 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess, etc., is actually paid. However, Parliament took cognizance of the fact that accounting year of a company did not always tally with the due dates under the Provident Fund Act, Municipal Corporation Act (octroi) and other tax laws. Therefore, by way of first proviso, an incentive/relaxation was sought to be given in respect of tax, duty, cess or fee by explicitly stating that if such tax, duty, cess or fee is paid before the date of filing of the return under the IT Act (due date), the assessee(s) then would be entitled to deduction. However, this relaxation/incentive was restricted only to tax, duty, cess and fee. It did not apply to contributions to labour welfare funds. The reason appears to be that the employer(s) should not sit on the collected contributions and deprive the workmen of the rightful benefits under social welfare legislations by delaying payment of contributions to the welfare funds. However, as stated above, the second proviso resulted in implementation problems, which have been mentioned hereinabove, and which resulted in the enactment of Finance Act, 2003, deleting the second proviso and bringing about uniformity in the first proviso by equating tax, duty, cess and fee with contributions to welfare funds. Once this uniformity is brought about in the first proviso, then, in our view, the Finance Act, 2003, which is made applicable by the Parliament only w.e.f. 1st April, 2004, would become curative in ITA.2077/Kol/2013-M/s. Vastu Developers- A.Y.2006-07 6

Before concluding, we extract hereinbelow the relevant observations of this Court in the case of CIT vs. J.H. Gotla (1985) 48 CTR (SC) 363 : (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC), which reads as under : "We should find out the intention from the language used by the legislature and if strict literal construction leads to an absurd result, i.e., a result not intended to be subserved by the object of the legislation found in the manner indicated before, then if another construction is possible apart from strict literal construction, then that construction should be preferred to the strict literal construction. Though equity and taxation are often strangers, attempts should be made that these do not remain always so and if a construction results in equity rather than in injustice, then such construction should be preferred to the literal construction."

For the aforestated reasons, we hold that Finance Act, 2003, to the extent indicated above, is curative in nature, hence, it is retrospective and it would operate w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 (when the first proviso came to be inserted). For the above reasons, we find no merit in this batch of civil appeals filed by the Department which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”

We are of the view that the reasoning of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd(supra) will equally to the amendment to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act whereby a second proviso was inserted in sub-clause (ia) of clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013. The provisions are intended to remove hardship. It was argued on behalf of the revenue that the existing provisions allow deduction in the year of payment and to that extent there is no hardship. We are of the view that the hardship in such an event would be taxing an Assessee on a higher income in one year and taxing him on lower income in a subsequent year. To the extent the Assessee is made to pay tax on a higher income in one year, there would still be hardship.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (I) Pvt.Ltd., in judgment dated 26.8.2015 has taken the view that the insertion of the second proviso to Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act is retrospective and will apply from 1.4.2005. We therefore accept the submission on behalf of the Assessee ITA.2077/Kol/2013-M/s. Vastu Developers- A.Y.2006-07 8 are of the view that it would be sufficient if the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the issue remanded to the AO for verification as to whether payees have included the receipts from the Assessee in their returns of income in terms of the decisions referred to above. In case the payees are not cooperating in providing details, the AO should call for the information u/s. 133(6) or 131 of the Act, for verification of the same. In this regard the Assessee should furnish all the details of assessment particulars of the recipients of payment from the Assessee to the AO to ensure that he does not have any difficulty in making the required verification. The other issues raised by the Assessee in its appeal are therefore left open without adjudication, for the present.

The appeal of the Assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 12.08.2016. Sd/- Sd/- [Dr.Arjun Lal Saini] [ N.V.Vasudevan ] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 12.08.2016. [RG PS] Copy of the order forwarded to: