2.3 The Court, then, considered various judgments of Courts [including the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. (160 ITR 961), in which the Courts have taken a view that interest is compensatory in nature. The Court also noted the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. S. Reddappa (234 ITR 62), wherein after considering various case laws, the Court has taken a view that it is fairly obvious that provisions of S. 234A, S. 234B and S. 234C, which replace the earlier provisions postulating payment of interest and are in pari materia with the said provisions cannot be anything except compensatory in character. The only material difference in the two sets of provisions is that while the old provisions conferred power to waive or reduce the levy of interest, the impugned provisions make the same automatic.
2.4 The Court then proceeded to consider the principles of interpretation of taxing statute and stated that it is true that the Court must interpret the provisions of the statute upon ascertaining the object of the Legislature through the medium or authoritative forms in which it is expressed. It is well-settled that the Court should, in such cases, assign its ordinary meaning. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anjum M. H. Ghaswalla (251 ITR 1), the Court stated that it is well settled that for the purpose of imposition of penal interest express provision in that regard in a statute must exist. The Court, then, further observed as under (Page 763) :
“In relation to beneficent construction, the basic rules of interpretation are not to be applied where
(i) the result would be re-legislation of a provision by addition, substitution or alteration of words and violence would be done to the spirit of the provision; (ii) where the words of a provision are capable of being given only one meaning; and (iii) where there is no ambiguity in provision — where there is a doubt, however, the Court may apply the rule of beneficent construction in order to advance the object of the Act [see Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24; AIR 2001 SC 2472].
We are not unmindful that the golden rule of interpretation of a statute is that it should be read liberally.”
2.5 After considering the above, the Court also stated that it is equally well settled that where the statute is capable of two interpretations, the principles of just construction should be taken recourse to.
2.6 Referring to the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue, the Court observed as under Wage 764) :
“The contention of the Revenue is that by reason of S. 234A, interest is charged for default in filing return as regards whereto it does not cease or stop with payment of taxes, whereas on the other hand, the contention of the assessee is that in a situation of this nature, where the assessee could not file a return for reasons beyond his control, he is not liable to pay interest, as thereby the Revenue does not suffer any loss inasmuch as tax, although strictly not in terms of definition of advance tax as contained in S. 208 of the Act, has been paid, but tax therefore has already been paid.
For the purpose of determining the issue, it is necessary to consider as to whether penalty and interest both were charged for failure to perform a statutory obligation. We think not. Failure to comply with the statutory provisions may lead to penal consequences. Interest, on the other hand, is payable either by way of compensation or damages. Even penal interest can be levied only in the case of a chronic defaulter.”
2.7 Referring to the Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of SMS Schloemann Siemeg, A.G. (254 ITR 97), the Court stated that in this judgment, the High Court has taken a view that interest is payable if the sum is due. Where the assessee is in default in making payment of the assessed amount demanded from him, he is liable to pay interest by way of compensation, but the same would not mean that although there does not exist any demand, interest would become payable. After referring to this judgment, the Court took the view that in a situation of this nature, the commonsense meaning of ‘interest’ must be applied even in S. 234A of the Act. The Court also referred to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘interest’ to show that the same is compensatory in nature. To support the view that interest cannot be charged when no tax is outstanding, the Court also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Shashikant Laxman Kale (185 ITR 105) and Ganesh Das Sreeram (169 ITR 221).
2.8 Dealing with the principles of imposition of penalty, the Court observed as under (Pages 766-767) :
“Penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of a clear provision. Imposition of penalty would ordinarily attract compliance with the principles of natural justice. It in certain situations would attract the principles of existence of mens rea. While a penalty is to be levied, discretionary power is ordinarily conferred on the authority. Unless such discretion is granted, the provisions may be held to be unconstitutional.”
2.9 Having referred to the above principles, the object of levying interest and the nature of interest, the Court opined that in situation of this nature, the doctrine of purposive construction must be taken recourse to. For this, the Court referred to various judgments dealing with the principle of purposive construction to support the opinion formed by the Court.
2.10 Referring to the contentions raised by the counsel on behalf of the Revenue to the effect that such payment of tax cannot be a ground for not charging interest u/s.234A and that will defeat the object and purpose u/s.234A, the Court stated that the object of S. 234A is to receive interest by way of compensation, if such was not the intention of the Legislature, it could have said so in explicit terms.
2.11 The Court then took notice of insertion of 271F w.e.f. 1-4-1999, providing for penalty for delay/default in furnishing return of income as referred to therein. The Court also noted the object of introducing this provision as explained in the memorandum explaining the insertion of the provision. Having referred to this, the Court stated that the purpose and the object of the Act is to realise the direct tax. It imposes a fiscal burden. When the statute says that an interest, which would be compensatory in nature, would be levied upon the happening of a particular event or inaction, the same by necessary implication would mean that the same can be levied on an ascertained sum. The Court then also considered the meaning of the term ‘advance tax’ in the context of this situation and observed as under (page 769):
“The interpretation clause, as is well known, is not a positive enactment. The interpretation clause also begins with the word ‘unless the context otherwise requires’. Advance tax has been defined to mean the advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-Co Such a definition is not an exhaustive one. If the word ‘advance tax’ is given a literal meaning, the same apart from being used only for the purpose of Chapter XVII-C may be held to be tax paid in advance before its due date, i.e., tax paid before the due date. The matter might have been otherwise, had there been an exhaustive definition of the said provision. The scheme of payment of advance tax is that it will have to be paid having regard to the anticipated income on September 15, December 15 and March 15. A person, who does not pay the entire tax by way of advance tax, may deposit the balance amount of tax along his return.
In the instant case, tax has been paid although no return has been filed. The Revenue, therefore, has not suffered any monetary loss.”
2.12 Finally, the Court took the view that in this case if the doctrine of purposive construction is not applied, the same may betray the purpose and object of the Act. Otherwise, we will have to read the penal provision in 234A, which was not and could not have been the object of the law for the reasons stated hereinbefore. The Court also stated that it is further well known that in the case of a doubt or dispute, taxation statute must be liberally construed. Therefore, we are not in a position to assign stringent meaning to the words, ‘advance tax’ as contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the Revenue.
2.13 Rejecting the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue with regard to the penal nature of the provision, the Court stated as under (Page 770) :
“If a penal provision is to be read in S. 234A, the same may border on unconstitutionality, as there-for the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with. It is also well settled that when two constructions are possible, the construction which would uphold the constitutionality of a provision, be applied. Had the Leg-islature made the amendment only for the purpose of imposition of a penalty, there was no necessity of enacting S. 271F later on.”
2.14 Finally, the Court concluded that interest would be payable only in a case where tax has not been deposited prior to the due date of filing of the income-tax return and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
CIT v. Dr. Prannoy Roy and Another, 19 DTR 102 (SC) :
3.1 At the instance of the Revenue, the above judgment of the Delhi High Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court along with another case, wherein the same was followed.
3.2 After referring to the facts in brief and the views expressed by the High Court, the Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held as under (Page 103) :
“Having heard counsel on both sides, we entirely agree with the finding recorded by the High Court as also the interpretation of S. 234A of the Act as it stood at the relevant time.
Since the tax due had already been paid, which was not less than the tax payable on the returned income which was accepted, the question of levy of interest does not arise. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.”
Conclusion:
4.1 In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that interest u/ s.234A is compensatory in nature and the same cannot be charged if taxes are paid before the due date of furnishing return of income even if the furnishing of return gets delayed. It is also important to note that the Apex Court has agreed with the findings as well as interpretation of the High Court with regard to S. 234A.
4.2 Recently the Gujarat High Court in the case of Roshanlal S. Jain (309 ITR 174) has taken a contrary view on the issue referred to in Para 1.2 above and has dissented from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy (supra). This has not been referred to in the above case before the Apex Court. However, in view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court will now no longer be regarded as given.
4.3 Incidentally, it may be mentioned that while filing an appeal against the levy of interest, care should be taken to deny the liability to pay such interest, so that the issue of maintainability of appeal against such interest does not create any difficulty.
