Ballabh Das Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

(i) The second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 is curative in nature and intended to supply an obvious omission, take care of an unintended consequence and make the section workable. Section 40(a)(ia) without the second proviso resulted in the unintended consequence of disallowance of legitimate business expenditure even in a case where the payee in receipt of the income had paid tax. It has for long been the legal position that if the payee has paid tax on his income, no recovery of any tax can be made from the person who had failed to deduct the income tax at source from such amount. In Grindlays Bank v CIT, (1992) 193 ITR 457 (Cal) decided on September 5, 1989, it was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that if the amount of tax has already been realised from the employees concerned directly, there cannot be any question of further realisation of tax as the same income cannot be taxed twice. If the tax has been realised once, it cannot be realised once again, but that does not mean that the assessee will not be liable for payment of interest or any other legal consequence for their failure to deduct or to pay tax in accordance with law to the revenue. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has accepted this position in its Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997. Reference in this behalf may also be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) where the same view was taken. The aforesaid settled position in law has also been legislatively recognized by insertion of a proviso in sub-section (1) of section 201 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012. Thus, the settled position in law is that if the deductee/payee has paid the tax, no recovery can be made from the person responsible for paying of income from which he failed to deduct tax at source. In a case where the deductee/payee has paid the tax on such income, the person responsible for paying the income is no longer required to deduct or deposit any tax at source. In the similar circumstances, the first proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted by the Finance Act, 2010, which has been held to be curative and therefore, retrospective in its operation by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in ITAT No. 302 of 2011, GA 3200/2011, CIT v Virgin Creations decided on November 23, 2011 provides for allowance of the expenditure in any subsequent year in which tax has been deducted and deposited. The intention of the legislature clearly is not to disallow legitimate business expenditure. The allowance of such expenditure is sought to be made subject to deduction and payment of tax at source. However, in a case where the deductee/payee has paid tax and as such the person responsible for paying is no longer required to deduct or pay any tax, legitimate business expenditure would stand disallowed since the situation contemplated by the first proviso viz. deduction and payment of tax in a subsequent year would never come about. Such unintended consequence has been sought to be taken care of by the second proviso inserted in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2012. There can be no doubt that the second proviso was inserted to supply an obvious omission and make the section workable. The insertion of second proviso was explained by Memorandum Explaining The provision in Finance Bill, 2012, reported in 342 ITR (Statutes) 234 at 260 & 261;

(ii) The claim of the assessee that at the time of making payment, he had before him the appropriate declarations in the prescribed form from the payees stating that no tax was payable by them in respect of their total income and therefore tax need not be deducted and in the light of these declarations he had no option but to make the payment of interest without any tax deduction. If the claim is true then the contention must be accepted because under sub-section (lA) of section 197A, if such a declaration is filed by the payee of interest no deduction of tax shall be made by the assessee. The revenue authorities have doubted the assessee’s version because according to them it is only when the Assessing Officer proposed the disallowance of the interest invoking the section 40(a) (ia) in the course of the assessment proceedings that the assessee filed the declarations claimed to have been submitted to him by the payees of the interest in the office of the CIT(TDS) as required by sub-section 2 of section 197A. Apart from this inference, there is no other evidence in their possession to hold that the declarations were not submitted by the payees of the interest to the assessee at the time when the payments were made. Without disproving the assessee’s claim on the basis of other evidence except by way of inference, it would not be fair or proper to discard the claim. The Assessing Officer has not recorded any statements from the payees of the interest to the effect that they did not file any declarations with the assessee at the appropriate time or to the effect that they filed the declarations only at the request of the assessee. In the absence of any such direct evidence, we are unable to reject the assessee’s claim. Unless it is proved that these forms were not in fact submitted by the payees, the assessee cannot be blamed because at the time of making payment, he has to perforce rely upon the declarations filed by the loan cr editors and he was not expected to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the loan creditors really and in truth have no taxable income on which tax is payable. That would be putting an impossible burden on the assessee. Thai apart sub-section IA of Section 197A merely requires a declaration to be filed by the payee of the interest and once it is filed the payer of the interest has no choice except to desist from deducting tax from the interest. The sub-section uses the word “shall” which leaves no choice to the assessee in the matter. In the case of payment of leave travel concession and conveyance allowance to employees who are liable to deduct tax from the salary paid to the employees under section 192, the Supreme obligation under the Act or Rules to collect evidence to show that the employee had actually utilized the money paid towards leave travel concession/conveyance allowance. The position is stronger under section 197A which does not apply to section 192, but which provides in sub-section (1A) that if the payee of the interest has filed the prescribed form to the effect that he is not liable to pay any tax in computing his total income, the payee shall not deduct any tax. The subsection does not impose any obligation on the payer to find out the truth of the declarations filed by the payee. Even if the assessee has delayed the filing of the declarations with the office of the CIT/CCIT (TDS) within the time limit specified in subsection (2) of section 197 A, that is a distinct omission or default for which a penalty is prescribed. Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the same.