Jay Mataji Construction, Gandhinagar V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

ITA 3111/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5857 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Retrospective amendment

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3111 /A HD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDBAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S.S. GODARA JM ] ITA NO. 3111 /AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 JAY MATAJI CONSTRUCTION, .. .. .. . .....APPELLANT PLOT NO.1515/1, SECT OR - 3D, GANDHINAGAR 382 003. [PAN: AA FFJ 2793 Q ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, GANDHINAGAR. .. ..................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE F OR THE A PPELLANT JAMES KURIAN FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 23.05 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 24 . 05. 2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1 ST AUGUST 2014 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. IN THE FIRST GROU ND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE : - 1. THE LEARNED C I T(A) HAS ERRED BY NOT DELETING ADDITION FOR RS.7,50,200/ - . 3. THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) ON THE GROUND THAT NO TAX IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FR OM THE RELATED PAYMENT O F LABOUR CHARGES. ITA NO. 3111 /A HD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 PAGE 2 OF 5 4. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE BUT WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERE D FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5 . WE FI ND THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY A DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RKP CO MPANY VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITA NO.106/RPR/2016 ORDER DATED 24.06.2016) WHEREIN IT IS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: - 4. WE FIND THAT HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED THE STAND TAKEN BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL VS ACIT [(2014) 149 ITD 363 (AGRA)] , AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING THE S AME. 9. . 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 CURAT IVE 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 PROVIS ION 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 TH E 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 DE CLARATORY 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. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PRO PER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND AFTER CARRYING OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS REGARDING RELATED PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE RECIPIENTS IN COMPUTA TION OF THEIR INCOME, REGARDING PAYMENT OF TAXES IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME AND REGARDING FILING OF THE RELATED INCOME TAX RETURNS BY THE RECIPIENTS. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE DUE AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG TO THE ASSESSEE, DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. WE ORDER SO 5. IN EFFECT THUS, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITH A ITA NO. 3111 /A HD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 PAGE 3 OF 5 DIRECTION TO AS TO WHETHER THE RECIPIENT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT RELATED PAYMENTS INTO COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME AND OFFERING THE SAME TO TAX, AND, IF SO, DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. 6. WHEN, HOWEVER, WE ASKED THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AS TO WHY WE SHOULD ALSO NOT REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS, HE, ALONGWITH HIS SENIOR COLLEAGUE SHRI DARHAN SINGH, WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE CIT(A) AUTHORING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WHO WAS ON DUTY AS CIT(DR) BEFORE US, HAD THREE POINTS TO MAKE - FIRST, THAT THERE ARE DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER S STAND, BY WAY OF HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT VS CIT [(2015) 63 TAXMANN.COM 99 (KERALA)] ; SECOND, THAT EVEN IF INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE CONSTRUED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT, THE CORRESPONDING RULE IN THE INCOME TAX RULES 1 962 IS NOT, AND HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO BE, RETROSPECTIVE, AND THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE GIVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT; AND, THIRD, THAT THERE IS NO DECISION ON THIS ISSUE BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND, AS SUCH, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE FAULTED. 7. AS FOR HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT (SUPRA), UNDOUBTEDLY, OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT AND OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF HON BLE DEL HI HIGH COURT - WHICH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE ARE CONFLICTING DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE OF RESTROSPECTIVITY OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA). IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT VIEWS OF THESE TWO HIGH COURTS ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WIT H EACH OTHER. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MEETING GROUND BETWEEN THESE TWO JUDGMENTS. THE DIFFICULTY ARISES AS TO WHICH OF THE HON BLE NON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS TO BE FOLLOWED BY US IN THE PRESENT SITUATION. IT WILL BE WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR U S TO CHOOSE VIEWS OF ONE OF THE HIGH COURTS BASED ON OUR PERCEPTIONS ABOUT REASONABLENESS OF THE RESPECTIVE VIEWPOINTS, AS SUCH AN EXERCISE WILL DE FACTO AMOUNT TO SITTING IN JUDGMENT OVER THE VIEWS OF THE HIGH COURTS SOMETHING DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE VERY BASIC PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM. WE HAVE TO, WITH OUR HIGHEST RESPECT OF BOTH THE HON BLE HIGH COURTS, ADOPT AN OBJECTIVE CRITERION FOR DECIDING AS TO WHICH OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY US. WE FIND GUIDANCE FROM TH E JUDGMENT OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. [(1972) 88 ITR 192 (SC)] . HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN A PRINCIPLE THAT 'IF TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TAXING PROVISIONS ARE POSSIBLE, THAT CONSTRUCTION WHIC H FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED'. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES AS ALSO BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT ITSELF. IN ANOTHER SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT, PETRON ENGG. CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. & ANR. VS. CBDT & ORS. (198 8) 75 CTR (SC) 20 : (1989) 175 ITR 523 (SC), IT HAS BEEN REITERATED THAT THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE OF LAW IS WELL ESTABLISHED AND THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAD, HOWEVER, SOME OCCASIONS TO DEVIATE FROM THIS GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRET ATION OF TAXING STATUTE WHICH CAN BE CONSTRUED AS EXCEPTIONS TO THIS GENERAL RULE. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE RULE OF RESOLVING AMBIGUITIES IN FAVOUR OF TAX - PAYER DOES NOT APPLY TO DEDUCTIONS, EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN PLAINLY AUTHORISED. THIS EXCEPTION, LAID DOWN IN LITTMAN VS. BARRON 1952(2) AIR 393 AND FOLLOWED BY APEX COURT IN MANGALORE CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. VS. DY. COMMR. OF CT (1992) SUPPL. (1) SCC 21 AND NOVOPAN INDIA LTD. VS. CCE & C 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC ), HAS BEE N SUMMED UP IN THE WORDS OF LORD LOHEN, 'IN CASE OF AMBIGUITY, A TAXING STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOUR OF A TAX - ITA NO. 3111 /A HD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 PAGE 4 OF 5 PAYER DOES NOT APPLY TO A PROVISION GIVING TAX - PAYER RELIEF IN CERTAIN CASES FROM A SECTION CLEARLY IMPOSING LIABILITY'. THIS EXCEPTION, IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAS NO APPLICATION. THE RULE OF RESOLVING AMBIGUITY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ALSO APPLY WHERE THE INTERPRETATION IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO TREAT THE PROVISIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS HELD IN THE MATTER OF STATE OF M.P. VS. DADABHOY S NEW CHIRMIRY PONRI HILL COLLIERY CO. LTD. AIR 1972 (SC) 614 . THEREFORE, WHAT FOLLOWS IS THAT IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF THE PROVISIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED, THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL LANDMARK (SUPRA), WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, IS REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY US. REVENUE DOES NOT, THEREFORE, DERIVE ANY ADVANTAGE FROM HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF THOMAS GEORGE M UTHOOT (SUPRA). 8. THE SECOND ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) BEING HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE, WITHOUT CORRESPONDING ENABLING PROVISION IN THE RULES BEING HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE. THAT IS A HYPER TECHNICAL ARGUMENT AND TO O PEDANTIC AN APPROACH. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN THE CONTEXT OF FINDING SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM TO THE TAXPAYER, AND THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS ABOUT FACTUAL VERIFICATIONS ON THE RECIPIENT HAVING INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE RECEIPTS BASED ON WHICH TAXABLE INCOME IS COMPUTED, AND THE INCOME HAVING BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. IT IS THIS ACTION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH THAT WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE COURSE O F ACTION SO ADOPTED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH APPROVED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS. IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE TO PICK UP ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND READ THE SAME IN ISOLATION WITH OTHER ASPECTS. THE DECISION IS NOT ON THE RETROSPECTIVI TY OF THE PROVISO ALONE, ITS ALSO ON DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE IN THE EVENT OF THE RECIPIENT HAVING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THESE RECEIPTS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE JUDGE MADE LAW IS AS BINDING ON THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS IS THE LEGISLATED STATUE. THE HY PER TECHNICAL STAND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MERIT OUR APPROVAL. 9. AS REGARDS LACK OF GUIDANCE FROM HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THAT CANNOT BE REASON ENOUGH TO DISREGARD THE DECISIONS FROM NON - JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURTS. HON BLE COURTS ABOVE, BEING A HIGHER TIER OF THE JUDICIAL HIERARCHY, BIND THE LOWER FORUMS NOT ONLY IN THE JURISDICTION OF RESPECTIVE HIGH COURTS, BUT UNLESS, THERE IS ANYTHING CONTRARY THERETO BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS, OTHER JURI SDICTIONS AS WELL. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION THAT IN THE HIERARCHICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE, BETTER WISDOM OF THE COURT BELOW HAS TO YIELD TO HIGHER WISDOM OF THE COURT ABOVE, AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO HUMBLY BOW BEFO RE THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY HON BLE COURTS ABOVE. SUCH A HIGH COURT BEING A NON - JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DOES NOT ALTER THE POSITION AS LAID DOWN BY HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. GODAVARI DEVI SARAF ([1978) 113 ITR 589 (BOM)] AND AS ANA LYSED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS AURANGABAD HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (PUNE)] . 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMI T THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIMITED VERIFICATION ON THE ASPECT AS TO WHETHER RECIPIENT OF PAYMENT HAS INCLUDED THE SAME IN HIS COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME OFFERED TO TAX, AND, IF FOUND TO BE SO, DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUEST ION. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE MATTER STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 3111 /A HD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 PAGE 5 OF 5 6 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH, WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FACTUAL VERIFICATION REGAR DING PAYMENT OF TAX BY RECIPIENT. IN THE EVENT THE RECIPIENT HAS DULY DISCHARGED THE TAX LIABILITY, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WILL STAND DELETED. WE ORDER SO. 7 . GROUND NO.1 IS THUS ALLOWED . 8 . AS GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED, ALL OTHER ISSUE S RAISED IN THE AP PEAL ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS . 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 24 TH DAY OF MAY , 2017. SD/ - SD/ - S.S. GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEM BER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , DATED THE 24 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 7 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER A SSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD