Siro Clinpharm Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

(i) Learned Departmental Representative, in his written note, accepts that “the legislature brought in amendment (in Section 92B) by the Finance Act, 2012, after the decision of Four Soft Ltd dated 14/09/2011”. He points out that the decision of the Tribunal, in the case of Bharti Airtel 161 TTJ 428, is per incurium because there were two decisions of this Tribunal, in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd Vs DCIT [(2012) 34 taxmann.com 9 (Mum)] and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs DCIT [2012- TII-70-ITAT-Mum], which were not considered by the Bharti Airtel decision. Our attention is also invited to the rectification petition filed by the Assessing Officer, which is said to be pending for disposal before the Tribunal. We donot find merits in this plea. Mahindra & Mahindra decision (supra) was passed on 6th June 2012, though at a point of time when Finance Act 2012 had just come into force i.e. post 28th May 2012, without even being aware whether or not the Finance Act 2012 was passed as it gave certain directions depending upon the exact amendment by the said Finance Act. The matter was remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer in a rather summary manner. It cannot be, by any stretch of logic, an authority on any legal question arising out of the law which, as per the Tribunal- wrongly though, was not even in existence. As for the Everest Kanto decision (supra), the issue was decided against the assessee as, to borrow the words of the coordinate bench, “Here in this case, it is undisputed that the assessee in its T.P. Study Report and also the TPO, have accepted that it is an international transaction and CUP is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the charging of guarantee fee”, and, it was for this short reason that the matter was decided against the assessee. The co-ordinate bench had further observed “in this case, the assessee has itself charged 0.5% guarantee commission from its AE, therefore, it is not a case of not charging of any kind of commission from its AE. The only point which has to be seen in this case is whether the same is at ALP or not”.

(ii) In the Micro Ink decision 176 TTJ 8 (Ahd), we had, amongst other things, taken not of the judicial developments leading to the insertion of Explanation to Section 92B and how within four months of Four Soft decision (supra) being announced, it was nullified by a legislative amendment. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in paragraph 46 and 47 of this decision, which has been reproduced earlier in this order, at considerable length. It assumes even more significance in the light of a new judicial development that we will deal with in a short while now. In the present case, we are dealing with a situation in which the amendment was made with retrospective effect and it covered certain issues which were already subjected to judicial interpretation in a particular manner;

(iii) It is very important to bear in mind the fact that right now we are dealing with amendment of a transfer pricing related provision which is in the nature of a SAAR (specific anti abuse rule), and that every anti abuse legislation, whether SAAR (specific anti abuse rule) or GAAR (general anti abuse rule), is a legislation seeking the taxpayers to organize their affairs in a manner compliant with the norms set out in such anti abuse legislation. An anti-abuse legislation does not trigger the levy of taxes; it only tells you what behavior is acceptable or what is not acceptable. What triggers levy of taxes is non-compliance with the manner in which the anti-abuse regulations require the taxpayers to conduct their affairs. In that sense, all anti abuse legislations seek a certain degree of compliance with the norms set out therein. It is, therefore, only elementary that amendments in the anti-abuse legislations can only be prospective. It does not make sense that someone tells you today as to how you should have behaved yesterday, and then goes on to levy a tax because you did not behave in that manner yesterday.

(iv)When this is put to the learned Departmental Representative that as to how the transfer pricing legislation can be expected to have a retrospective amendment, which is almost like telling people how they should have benchmarked their international transactions in past and thus expecting them to do the impossible, his stock reply is that the amendment only clarifies the law, it does not expand the law.

(v) Well, if the 2012 amendment does not add anything or expand the scope of international transaction defined under section 92B, assuming that it indeed does not- as learned Departmental Representative contends, this provision has already been judicially interpreted, and the matter rests there unless it is reversed by a higher judicial forum. However, if the 2012 amendment does increase the scope of international transaction under section 92B, as is our considered view, there is no way it could be implemented for the period prior to this law coming on the statute i.e. 28th May 2012. The law is well settled. It does not expect anyone to perform an impossibility.

(vi) It is for this reason that the Explanation to Section 92 B, though stated to be clarificatory and stated to be effective from 1st April 2002, has to be necessarily treated as effective from at best the assessment year 2013-14. In addition to this reason, in the light of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s guidance in the case of New Skies Satellite BV (supra) also, the amendment in the definition of international transaction under Section 92B, to the extent it pertains to the issuance of corporate guarantee being outside the scope of ‘international transaction’, cannot be said to be retrospective in effect. The fact that it is stated to be retrospective, in the light of the aforesaid guidance of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, would not alter the situation, and it can only be treated as prospective.