M/S B.P.MISHRA & CO., KORBA(CG) V. DY.. C.I.T.-, KORBA(CG)

ITA 46/BIL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1372 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Business income; Retrospective amendment

Judgement Text

ITA NO S . 46, 47 & 48/ RPR/201 5 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR S : 2008 - 09,2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM & C.M. GARG, JM ] ITA NO S . 46, 47 & 48 / RPR /20 1 5 AS SESSMENT Y EAR S : 20 08 - 09, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 B.P. MISHRA & CO. .APPELLANT RANI ROAD, KORBA [PAN : A AGFB 7095 L ] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / ITO - 2, KORBA. ....................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE , FOR THE A PPELLANT S.K. MEENA , F OR THE RE SPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 2 3 RD , 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCIN G THE ORDER : JUNE 24 TH , 201 6 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: BY WAY OF TH ESE THREE APPEAL S , THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE THREE DIFFERENT ORDER S, ALL DATED 18 .1 1 .201 4 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR S 20 08 - 09, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 , ON TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 1. T H AT THE LD. CIT APPEALS BILASPUR HAS ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE ADDITIONS/ D ISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 161148/ - U/S.40 (A)(IA) OUT OF INT EREST (FINANCE CHARGES) PAID TO FINANCE COMPANY BEING TDS IS NOT MADE. THE AFORESAID ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 1. T HAT THE LD. CIT APPEALS BILASPUR HAS ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE B Y THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 415497 / - ITA NO S . 46, 47 & 48/ RPR/201 5 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR S : 2008 - 09,2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE 2 OF 6 U/S.40(A)(IA) OUT OF INTEREST (FINANCE CHARGES) PAID TO FINANCE COMPANY BEING TDS IS NOT MADE. THE AFORESAID ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 1. T HAT THE LD. CIT APPEALS B ILASPUR HAS ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 626421 / - U/S.40(A)(IA) OUT OF INTEREST (FINANCE CHARGES) PAID TO FINANCE COMPANY BEING TDS IS NOT MADE. THE AFORESAID ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE SE APPEAL S IS SQUARELY COVERED VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE IN THE CASE OF RKP COMPANY, KORBA VS. ITO, KORBA - ITA NO.106/RPR/2016 - WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: - 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. NONE HAS APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE BUT AS THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS A SHORT LEGAL ISSUE, SET OUT IN A NARR OW COMPASS OF FACTS, WHICH CAN BE DISPOSED OF EVEN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO PROCCED WITH THE MATTER EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 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 SAME. 9. . NOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN COMPASSIONATE ENOUG H 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 RETROSPE CTIVE 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 ITA NO S . 46, 47 & 48/ RPR/201 5 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR S : 2008 - 09,2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE 3 OF 6 PUNISH THE ASSESSEES FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BY DECLINING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RELATED PAYMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE CORRESPONDING INC OME 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 A PRIL, 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 PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDI CATION 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 COMPUTATION OF THEIR INCOME, REGARDING PAYMENT OF TAXES IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME AN D 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 HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND BY WAY O F 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 OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE RECIPIENT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT RELATED PAY MENTS 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 - F IRST, 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 SECON D PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE CONSTRUED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT, THE CORRESPONDING RULE IN THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 IS NOT, AND HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO BE, RETROSPECTIVE, AND THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE GIVE RETRO SPECTIVE 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. ITA NO S . 46, 47 & 48/ RPR/201 5 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR S : 2008 - 09,2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE 4 OF 6 7. AS FOR HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF THOMAS GEORGE MUTHO OT (SUPRA), UNDOUBTEDLY, OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT AND OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT - WHICH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE ARE CONFLICTING DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE OF RESTROSPECTIVIT Y OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA). IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT VIEWS OF THESE TWO HIGH COURTS ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MEETING GROUND BETWEEN THESE TWO JUDGMENTS. THE DIFFICULTY ARISES AS TO WHICH OF THE HO N BLE NON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS TO BE FOLLOWED BY US IN THE PRESENT SITUATION. IT WILL BE WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO CHOOSE VIEWS OF ONE OF THE HIGH COURTS BASED ON OUR PERCEPTIONS ABOUT REASONABLENESS OF THE RESPECTIVE VIEWPOINTS, AS SUCH AN E XERCISE 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 THE 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 WHICH 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. (1988) 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 INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTE WHICH CAN BE CONSTRUED AS EXCEPTIONS TO THIS GENERAL RULE. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE RULE OF RESOLVING AMBIG UITIES 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 & FERT ILIZERS LTD. VS. DY. COMMR. OF CT (1992) SUPPL. (1) SCC 21 AND NOVOPAN INDIA LTD. VS. CCE & C 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC ), HAS BEEN SUMMED UP IN THE WORDS OF LORD LOHEN, 'IN CASE OF AMBIGUITY, A TAXING STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOUR OF A TAX - PAYER DOES N OT 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 IN TERPRETATION 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 CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF THE PROVISIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED, ITA NO S . 46, 47 & 48/ RPR/201 5 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR S : 2008 - 09,2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE 5 OF 6 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 U S. REVENUE DOES NOT, THEREFORE, DERIVE ANY ADVANTAGE FROM HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT (SUPRA). 8. THE SECOND ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) BEING HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE, WI THOUT CORRESPONDING ENABLING PROVISION IN THE RULES BEING HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE. THAT IS A HYPER TECHNICAL ARGUMENT AND TOO PEDANTIC AN APPROACH. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN 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 T HE INCOME HAVING BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. IT IS THIS ACTION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH THAT WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE COURSE OF ACTION SO ADOPTED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH APPROVED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS. IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE TO PICK UP ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF TH E DECISION OF THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND READ THE SAME IN ISOLATION WITH OTHER ASPECTS. THE DECISION IS NOT ON THE RETROSPECTIVITY OF THE PROVISO ALONE, ITS ALSO ON DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE IN THE EVENT OF THE RECIPIENT HAVING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THESE RECE IPTS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE JUDGE MADE LAW IS AS BINDING ON THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS IS THE LEGISLATED STATUE. THE HYPER TECHNICAL STAND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MERIT OUR APPROVAL. 9. AS REGARDS LACK OF GUIDANC E FROM HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THAT CAN NOT BE REASON ENOUGH TO DISREGARD THE DECISIONS FROM NON - JURISDICTIONAL 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 JURISDICTIONS AS WELL. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION THAT IN THE HIERARCHICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE, BETT ER WISDOM OF THE COURT BELOW HAS TO YIELD TO HIGHER WISDOM OF THE COURT ABOVE, AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO HUMBLY BOW BEFORE THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY HON BLE COURTS ABOVE. SUCH A HIGH COURT BEING A NON - JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DOES NOT ALTER THE POSITION AS LA ID DOWN BY HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. GODAVARI DEVI SARAF ([1978) 113 ITR 589 (BOM)] AND AS ANALYSED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS AURANGABAD HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD [(2009) 118 ITD 1 (PUNE)] . ITA NO S . 46, 47 & 48/ RPR/201 5 ASSESSMEN T Y EAR S : 2008 - 09,2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 PAGE 6 OF 6 10. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIMITED VERIFICATION ON THE ASPECT AS TO WHETHER RECIPIENT OF PAYMENT HAS INCLUDED THE SAM E IN HIS COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME OFFERED TO TAX, AND, IF FOUND TO BE SO, DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE MATTER STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF TH E MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN IN THE ABOVE CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEAL S A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. S D/ - SD/ - C.M. GARG PRAMOD KU MAR ( JUDICIAL MEMBER ) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016 . PBN/* COPIES TO : (1 ) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR