Santosh Kumar Kedia 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 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.

(ii) 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 (Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated January 29, 1997, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. v CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC), Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC) and CIT v. Alom Extrusions (2009) 319 ITR 466 (SC) followed).