29. CIT
vs. S.M. Anand [2020]
422 ITR 209 (Kar.) Date
of order: 23rd August, 2019 A.Y.:
2005-06
Business
expenditure – Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of ITA, 1961 – Amounts not deductible
– Payments liable to deduction of tax at source – Failure to deduct tax at
source – Law applicable – Effect of amendment of section 40(a)(ia) with effect
from 1st April, 2013 providing for cases where recipient has
declared income in question and paid tax thereon – Amendment retrospective –
Non-deduction of tax at source not causing loss to Revenue – Disallowance not
applicable; A.Y. 2005-06
In the
appeal by the Revenue, the following question of law was raised:
‘Whether the
second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act inserted by the Finance
Act, 2012 is clarificatory and retrospective in nature and cancellation of the
disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) by the Tribunal is justifiable where the recipient
of the amount has already discharged his tax liability therein?’
The
Karnataka High Court held as under:
‘i) The scheme of section 40(a)(ia) of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 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 a penalty for tax withholding lapse but 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 271C and section 40(a)(ia) does not add to
it. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of
the second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of
the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee’s
tax withholding lapses did not result in any loss to the exchequer.
ii) In order to cure these shortcomings of the
provision, and thus obviate the unintended hardships, an amendment in law was
made. 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 the
second proviso must be given retrospective effect from the point of time
when the related legal provision was introduced. The insertion of the 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.
iii) It was not disputed that the payments made by
the assessee to the sub-contractors had been offered to tax in their respective
returns of income, uncontroverted by the authorities. There was no actual loss
of revenue. Hence, section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable.
iv) Accordingly, we answer the substantial
question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.’
