M/s Vasu Developers, Hooghly V. I.T.O Wd - 1(4),Hooghly, Hooghly

ITA 2077/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4730 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 43B; 133(6); 194C; 201(1); 131; 28

Judgement Text

ITA.2077/KOL/2013-M/S. VASTU DEVELOPERS- A.Y.2006-0 7 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM] I.T.A NO. 2077/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6-07 M/S. VASTU DEVELOPERS -VS.- I.T.O. WARD 1 (4) HOOGHLY HOOGHLY [PAN : AAFFV 9826 Q] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVO CATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KU REEL, JCIT.SR.DR. DATE OF HEARING : 10.08.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.08.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 20.5.2013 OF CIT(A)- XXXVI, KOLKATA, RELATING TO AY 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RE ADS AS FOLLOWS: '1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ARBITR ARY, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,03,990/- UNDER SEC. 40 (A)(IA) WHEN THERE WAS NO CONTRACT, T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WERE NOT APPLICABLE, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO LABOUR SA RDAR WHO DISTRIBUTED WAGES TO THE LABOURERS AND THE PAY ROLL OF PAYMENT TO EACH LABOU R WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A) (IA) WHEN NO AMOUNT WAS DUE AND PAYABLE TO THE PARTIES AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 4. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) IS UNCALLED FOR. 5. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN THE RELIEF PRAYE D FOR. 6. FOR THAT THE ASSESEE CRAVFES LEVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA.2077/KOL/2013-M/S. VASTU DEVELOPERS- A.Y.2006-0 7 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH IS ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AS PROMOTER, DEVELOPER AND BUILDER. DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 06-07, THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT THREE PROJECTS WHICH WERE UNDER EXECUTION. IN PURSUANCE OF ITS ACTIVITIES. PA YMENT IN THE SUM OF RS. 15,03,990/- ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES WAS MADE TO SHRI AZIM ANSARI ALONG WITH AMOUNTS OF RS. 47.980/- AND RS. 84.000/- TO MADAN MOHAN ENTERP RISES AND SURYA UDYOG RESPECTIVELY. THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(4) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30-03-2007 DISCLOSING A TOTAL I NCOME OF RS. 11,580/-. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAR D 1 (4), HOOGHLY (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE SAKE O F BREVITY) FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS TO SHRI AZIM ANSARI ALONG WITH MADAN MOHAN ENTERPRISES AND SURYA UDYOG WERE MADE WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED U/S, 194C OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO HELD THAT THE MISCHIEF OF THE PR OVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) READ WITH S. 194C OF THE ACT WAS ATTRACTED IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE AND THEREFORE , THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 16,35,970/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FINDING THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DED UCTION FOR RS.16,35,970/- IN RESPECT OF ITS EXPENDITURE TOWARDS PAYMENT OF LABOUR CONTR ACTOR (AMALGAMATED WITH UNDER THE HEAD OF EXPENDITURE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, DIRECT EXPENSES AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR FOR RS. 51,25.279.75 AS SH OWN IN P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2006) IS DISALLOWED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WI TH THE TDS PROVISION AND ADDED TO ITS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEA R 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BY APPLYING PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A) (1A) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961.' 4. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARNE D 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.2006-0 7 3 WHETHER THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PR ESENT CASE, THIS APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED, IF A DIRECTION IS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL T O THE AO TO VERIFY IF THE PAYEES HAVE DECLARED THE RECEIPT FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RET URN 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 FOL LOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. WITH A VIE W TO LIBERALIZE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FINANCE ACT 2012 BROUGHT AMEND MENT W.E.F 01.04.2013 AS UNDER. THE FOLLOWING SECOND PROVISO WAS INSERTED IN SUB-CL AUSE ( 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 TH E 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 PROVI SO. 7. SINCE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AS AMEND ED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 IS LINKED TO SECTION 201 OF THE ACT, IN WHICH A PROVISO WAS INSE RTED, IT IS NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH READ THUS: SEC.201: (1) WHERE ANY PERSON, INCLUDING THE PRINC IPAL 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 FAIL S 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 IN CUR, 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 TH E 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 SE CTION 139; (II) HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SUCH SUM FOR COMPUTIN G INCOME IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME; AND ITA.2077/KOL/2013-M/S. VASTU DEVELOPERS- A.Y.2006-0 7 4 (III) HAS PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME DECLARED BY HIM IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, AND THE PERSON FURNISHES A CERTIFICATE TO T HIS EFFECT FROM AN ACCOUNTANT IN SUCH FORM AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED: 8. MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS WHILE INTR ODUCING FINANCE BILL, 2012 PROVIDES THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECT ION 40(A)(IA) IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS:- IN ORDER TO RATIONALISE THE PROVISIONS OF DISALLOW ANCE ON ACCOUNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A RESIDE NT 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 S HALL 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 PAYE E. 9. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE MEANT TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEES PERFORM THEIR OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SUCH COMPLIANCE WILL ENSURE REVENUE COLLE CTION WITHOUT MUCH HASSLE. WHEN THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THOSE PROVISION S 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 GEN UINE BUSINESS EXPENSES ARE MADE THAN THAT WOULD BE UNJUST ENRICHMENT ON THE PAR T OF THE GOVERNMENT AS THE PAYEE WOULD HAVE ALSO PAID THE TAXES ON SUCH INCOME. IN O RDER TO REMOVE THIS ANOMALY, THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. IN CASE OF PAYMENT T O NON-RESIDENT, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER MECHANISM TO RECOVER THE DU E 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 SEC TION 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 COM PUTING INCOME IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME; AND (III) PAYEE HAS PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME DEC LARED BY HIM IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ITA.2077/KOL/2013-M/S. VASTU DEVELOPERS- A.Y.2006-0 7 5 AND THE PAYER FURNISHES A CERTIFICATE TO THIS EFFEC T FROM AN ACCOUNTANT IN SUCH FORM AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 10. THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER THE AMENDMENT MA DE AS ABOVE IS PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE W.E.F. 1.4.2005 WHEN THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.40(A)(IA) WERE INTRODUCED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE PROVISO INS ERTED 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 FRO M 1ST APRIL, 2005, BEING THE DATE FROM WHICH SUB-CLAUSE (IA) OF SECTION 40(A) WAS INS ERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004. IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. 319 ITR 306 (SC) , THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD TO DEAL WITH THE QUESTION, WHETHER OMISSION (DE LETION) 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 APRI L, 1988? PRIOR TO FINANCE ACT, 2003, THE SECOND PROVISO TO S. 43B OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (F OR SHORT, 'THE ACT') RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM PAYABLE BY AN EMPLO YER BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND/SUPERANNUATION FUND OR ANY OTHER FUN D 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 T O PROVIDENT FUND OR ANY OTHER WELFARE FUND WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION, IF PAID BE FORE THE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT WAS E NCLOSED 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 HARDSHI P TO THE EMPLOYERS. THEY REPRESENTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT THEIR HARDSHIP AND, CONSEQU ENTLY, PURSUANT TO THE REPORT OF THE KELKAR COMMITTEE, THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED FIN ANCE 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 B ROUGHT ABOUT BETWEEN PAYMENT OF FEES, TAXES, CESS, ETC., ON ONE HAND AND CONTRIBUTI ON MADE TO EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND, ETC., ON THE OTHER. 11 . ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE OMISSION OF THE SE COND 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.2006-0 7 6 TO THE ASSESSEE(S)-EMPLOYER(S), THE SAID FINANCE AC T, 2003, TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE, OPERATED W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1988 (RETROSPECTI VELY). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE DELETION OF THE SECOND PROVISO WAS RE TROSPECTIVE W.E.F.1.4.2004. THE COURT CONSIDERED THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AND THE HIST ORICAL BACKGROUND AND THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 43B. THE CO URT ALSO REFERRED TO THE EARLIER AMENDMENTS MADE IN 1988 WITH INTRODUCTION OF THE FI RST 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 THA T IT WAS CLEAR THAT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF 2003, THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTITLED TO DED UCTION 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 PROV ISO APPLICABLE TO CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUNDS REFERRED TO IN S. 43B(B). 15. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THESE CIVIL APPEALS FILED BY TH E DEPARTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : FIRSTLY, AS STATED ABOVE, S. 43B (MAIN SE CTION), WHICH STOOD INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 1983, W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1984, EXPRESSL Y COMMENCES WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE, THE UNDERLYING OBJECT BEING TO DISALLOW DED UCTIONS CLAIMED MERELY BY MAKING A BOOK ENTRY BASED ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG. 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, DU TY, CESS, ETC., IS ACTUALLY PAID. HOWEVER, PARLIAMENT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THA T ACCOUNTING YEAR OF A COMPANY DID NOT ALWAYS TALLY WITH THE DUE DATES UNDER THE P ROVIDENT FUND ACT, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT (OCTROI) AND OTHER TAX LAWS. THEREF ORE, BY WAY OF FIRST PROVISO, AN INCENTIVE/RELAXATION WAS SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN IN RESP ECT 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 ASSESSE E(S) THEN WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, THIS RELAXATION/INCENTIVE WAS R ESTRICTED ONLY TO TAX, DUTY, CESS AND FEE. IT DID NOT APPLY TO CONTRIBUTIONS TO LABOU R WELFARE FUNDS. THE REASON APPEARS TO BE THAT THE EMPLOYER(S) SHOULD NOT SIT ON THE CO LLECTED CONTRIBUTIONS AND DEPRIVE THE WORKMEN OF THE RIGHTFUL BENEFITS UNDER SOCIAL WELFA RE LEGISLATIONS BY DELAYING PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUNDS. HOWE VER, 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 FU NDS. 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.2006-0 7 7 NATURE, HENCE, IT WOULD APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F . 1ST APRIL, 1988. SECONDLY, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT, IN THE CASE OF ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD . ETC. VS. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 364 : (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC), THE SCHEME OF S. 43B OF THE ACT CAME TO BE EXAMINED. IN THAT CASE, THE QUESTION WHICH AROSE FOR DETERMIN ATION WAS, WHETHER SALES-TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PAID AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR BUT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE RELEVANT SALES-TA X LAW SHOULD BE DISALLOWED UNDER S. 43B OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ? THAT WAS A CASE WHICH RELATED TO ASST. YR. 1984-85. THE RELEVA NT ACCOUNTING PERIOD ENDED ON 30TH JUNE, 1983. THE ITO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES-TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST QUARTER OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR. THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED UNDER S. 43B WHICH, AS STATED ABOVE, WAS INSERTED W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1984. IT IS ALSO REL EVANT TO NOTE THAT THE FIRST PROVISO WHICH CAME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1988 WAS NO T ON THE STATUTE BOOK WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. ETC. (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE FIRST P ROVISO CAME TO BE INSERTED W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1988, IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THAT PROVISO BECAUSE IT OPERATED RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 1ST APRIL, 1984, WHEN S. 43B S TOOD INSERTED. THIS IS HOW THE QUESTION OF RETROSPECTIVITY AROSE IN ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. ETC. (SUPRA). THIS COURT, IN ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. ETC. (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHEN A PROVISO IS INSERTED TO REMEDY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND TO MAKE THE SECTION WOR KABLE, A PROVISO WHICH SUPPLIES AN OBVIOUS OMISSION IN THE SECTION AND WHICH PROVIS O IS REQUIRED TO BE READ INTO THE SECTION TO GIVE THE SECTION A REASONABLE INTERPRETA TION, IT COULD BE READ RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION, PARTICULARLY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SE CTION AS A WHOLE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS COURT, IN ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. ETC. (SUPRA), HELD THAT THE FIRST PROVISO WAS CURATIVE IN NATURE, HENCE, RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1988. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE ONCE AGAIN THAT, BY FINANCE ACT, 2003, NOT ONL Y THE SECOND PROVISO IS DELETED BUT EVEN THE FIRST PROVISO IS SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED BY B RINGING ABOUT AN UNIFORMITY IN TAX, DUTY, CESS AND FEE ON THE ONE HAND VIS-A-VIS CONTRI BUTIONS TO WELFARE FUNDS OF EMPLOYEE(S) ON THE OTHER. THIS IS ONE MORE REASON W HY WE HOLD THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, IS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. MOREOVER, THE JUDGMENT IN ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. ETC. (SUPRA) IS DELIVERED BY A BENCH OF THREE LEARN ED JUDGES, WHICH IS BINDING ON US. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT FINANCE ACT, 2003, WILL O PERATE RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1988 (WHEN THE FIRST PROVISO STOOD INSERTED) . LASTLY, WE MAY POINT OUT THE HARDSHIP AND THE INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION WHICH WOU LD BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE(S) IF THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT FINANCE ACT, 2003, TO THE ABOVE EXTENT, OPERATED PROSPECTIVELY. TAKE AN EXAMP LEIN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RESPONDENTS HAVE DEPOSITED THE CONTRIBUTIONS WITH T HE R.P.F.C. AFTER 31ST MARCH (END OF ACCOUNTING YEAR) BUT BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN S UNDER THE IT ACT AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT FALLS AFTER THE DUE DATE UNDER THE EMPLOYEE S' PROVIDENT FUND ACT, THEY WILL BE DENIED DEDUCTION FOR ALL TIMES. IN VIEW OF THE S ECOND PROVISO, WHICH STOOD ON THE STATUTE BOOK AT THE RELEVANT TIME, EACH OF SUCH ASS ESSEE(S) WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER S. 43B OF THE ACT FOR ALL TIMES. TH EY WOULD LOSE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION EVEN IN THE YEAR OF ACCOUNT IN WHICH THEY PAY THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUNDS, WHEREAS A DEFAULTER, WHO FAILS TO PA Y THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE WELFARE FUND RIGHT UPTO 1ST APRIL, 2004, AND WHO PAYS THE C ONTRIBUTION AFTER 1ST APRIL, 2004, WOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER S. 43B OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, FINANCE ACT, 2003, TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE, S HOULD BE READ AS RETROSPECTIVE. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, OPERATE FROM 1ST APRIL, 1988, WHE N THE FIRST PROVISO WAS INTRODUCED. IT IS TRUE THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS EXPLICITLY STATE D THAT FINANCE ACT, 2003, WILL OPERATE ITA.2077/KOL/2013-M/S. VASTU DEVELOPERS- A.Y.2006-0 7 8 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 2004. HOWEVER, THE MATTER BEFORE US INVOLVES THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE PLACED ON THE PROVISIONS OF FINA NCE ACT, 2003. 16. BEFORE CONCLUDING, WE EXTRACT HEREINBELOW THE RELEV ANT OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J.H. GOTLA (1985) 48 C TR (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 LEAD S 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, T HEN 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, ATT EMPTS SHOULD BE MADE THAT THESE DO NOT REMAIN ALWAYS SO AND IF A CO NSTRUCTION RESULTS IN EQUITY RATHER THAN IN INJUSTICE, THEN SUCH CONST RUCTION SHOULD BE PREFERRED TO THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.' 17. FOR THE AFORESTATED REASONS, WE HOLD THAT FINANCE A CT, 2003, TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE, IS CURATIVE IN NATURE, HENCE, IT I S RETROSPECTIVE AND IT WOULD OPERATE W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1988 (WHEN THE FIRST PROV ISO CAME TO BE INSERTED). FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS BATCH OF CI VIL APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH ARE HEREBY DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 12. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASONING OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD(SUPRA) WILL EQUALLY TO THE AMEN DMENT 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 PRO VISIONS ARE INTENDED TO REMOVE HARDSHIP. IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE T HAT 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 TA XING AN ASSESSEE ON A HIGHER INCOME IN ONE YEAR AND TAXING HIM ON LOWER INCOME I N 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. 13. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (I) PVT.LTD., IN ITA NO.160/2015 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 SUBMI SSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ITA.2077/KOL/2013-M/S. VASTU DEVELOPERS- A.Y.2006-0 7 9 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 INCO ME IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE. IN CASE THE PAYEES ARE NOT COOPERATING I N 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 DET AILS OF ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS OF THE RECIPIENTS OF PAYMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO T O 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 ADJUD ICATION, FOR THE PRESENT. 14. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COUR T 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: 1. M/S. VASTU DEVELOPERS, 6, RAI M.C.LAHIRI STREET, SERAMPORE, DIST. HOOGHLY- 712204. 2. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), HOOGHLY. 3. CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA. 4. CIT-XX, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES