Facts:
The assessee-firm incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38,75,000 and commission of Rs.2,43,253without deducting TDS. Of the aggregate amount of Rs.41,18,253 incurred during the previous year, the amounts outstanding as on 31st March were Rs.1,78,025. In the course of assessment proceedings the assessee’s representative agreed for disallowance. The AO disallowed Rs.41,18,253 u/s.40(a)(ia).
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that on a careful reading of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and also on going through the expert opinion, the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) should be Rs.1,78,025, being the amount of brokerage and commission outstanding as on 31st March on which tax was not deducted at source, and not the entire sum of Rs.41,18,253. The CIT(A) rejected the contention made on behalf of the assessee and upheld the action of the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Since the Division Bench did not agree with the decision rendered by the Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of Teja Constructions, (ITA No. 308/Hyd./2009 relating to A.Y. 2005-06, order dated 23-10-2009), on which reliance was placed by the counsel of the assessee, it referred the matter to the President to constitute a Special Bench (SB). The President constituted the SB to decide the following question:
“Whether section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act can be invoked only to disallow expenditure of the nature referred to therein, which is shown as ‘payable’ as on the date of the balance sheet or it can be invoked also to disallow such expenditure which became payable at any-time during the relevant previous year and was actually paid within the previous year?”
Held:
The majority view (VP and JM) of the SB was as under:
By replacing the words ‘amounts credited or paid’, as proposed by the Finance Bill, 2004 with the ‘payable’, at the time of enactment (by the Finance Act, 2004), the Legislature has clarified its intent that only outstanding amounts or the provisions for expenses liable for TDS under Chapter XVII-B of the Act is sought to be disallowed in the event there is a default in following the obligations casted upon the assessee under Chapter XVII-B. Section 40(a)(ia) creates a legal fiction by virtue of which even genuine and admissible expenditure can be disallowed due to non-deduction of tax at source. A legal fiction has to be limited to the area for which it is created. The word ‘payable’ must be understood in its natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to its grammatical meaning. Such a construction would not lead to absurdity because there is nothing in this context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The word ‘payable’ is to be assigned strict interpretation, in view of the object of the legislation which is intended from the replacement of the words in the proposed and enacted provision.
The majority view of the SB was that section 40(a) (ia) is applicable only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have been actually paid during the previous year, without deduction of tax at source.
The AM held that the object of section 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that the TDS provisions are scrupulously implemented without any default. The term ‘payable’ cannot be assigned a narrow interpretation. Section 40(ia) is to be interpreted harmoniously with the TDS provisions. Accordingly, section 40(a)(ia) applies to all expenditure which is actually paid and also which is payable as at the end of the year.
The SB, by a majority view, decided the question referred to it in favour of the assessee.
