According to the
Ld. Advocates present in the Court-Room No. 4 of the Calcutta High Court, a
division bench of Hon’ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta & Hon’ble Justice
Tarun Kr. Das passed a judgement on 3.4.2013 in the post- lunch sitting of the
Court in a case overruling the majority view taken by the Special Bench of
ITAT, Vishakapatnam.
It is worthwhile
to note that the ITAT Special bench (Vishakapatnam) in the case of Merilyn
Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT 146 TTJ 1, by a majority view, held that the
disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was applicable only to the amounts outstanding or
provisions made on the date of balance sheet on which there was a default in
complying with the TDS provisions and not to the amounts actually paid.
Recently,
Revenue had filed an application u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before
the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying that the operation of the
order passed by the ITAT, Vizag Bench in the case of Merilyn Shipping may
please be suspended. Pursuant to the said application, the Andhra Pradesh High
Court had passed an interim suspension order.
Thereafter,
there was a virtual embargo on the Special bench order in Merilyn Shipping and
all the Benches of ITAT as well as authorities below were refraining from
passing any order following Merilyn Shipping.
An Article
titled “Despite Suspension, Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping is binding”
was hosted by ITAT Online on 30.01.2013 where an opinion was expressed that the
salutary impact of the Special bench Judgement has not been oblitered inspite
of the “Interim Suspension”.Some judgments from the Calcutta High Court & the apex court were cited for the proposition ( viz.,Pijush Kanti Chowdhury vs. State of West Bengal and
Ors.,Shree
Chamund Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras) . Thereafter, the embargo was lifted and several orders
were passed following the ratio of Merilyn Shipping after those judgments were cited.
Now, the reversal
of the majority view of the Merilyn Shipping by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court
will have a wider ramification all over the country. Though, technically
non-jurisdictional High Court judgements are not binding over the lower
authorities but Income Tax Act being an all India statute, the interpretation given by a High Court is followed by the other High Courts and other authorities
unless there are compelling reasons to depart from the view. Please refer Peirce Leslie & Co. v. CIT 216 ITR 176
(Mad), CIT v. Deepak family Trust No. 1(1994) 72 Taxman 406 (Guj.);CIT v.
Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 164 (Bom);Sarupchand Hukamchand,
In re [1945] 13 ITR 245 (Bom.)]
The Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court’s judgement has now sealed an important escape route out of
the most mischievous provision ever made in the Income Tax Act i.e. Section
40(a)(ia). There were already five provisions in the Income Tax Act viz.,
sections 201(1), 201(1A), 221, 271C, 271B to ensure strict compliance of TDS
provisions. These provisions are containing provisions for strict penal actions
having huge financial implications as well as provision for incarceration of
the defaulters. The 100% disallowance of expenditure for the technical default
of non-deduction of TDS of as low as 1% of the amount paid/ payable will prove
to be the final nail in the coffin of the TDS defaulters. It will mean that for
a small traffic violation of crossing a red light, one will be hanged by the
noose. It will also mean flogging a horse many times over even after he is
dead.
However, the
mandarins of the North Block, who were instrumental in bringing in such an
illogical and draconian provision will now be able to nurse their “sadistic
personality disorders” with a smile on their face.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.