Payment of related Indian income tax by recipient foreign entity and disallowance for payment made without deduction of TDS

Payment of related Indian income tax by recipient foreign entity and its impact on the impugned disallowance

In the present case, we are dealing with a situation in which payment has been made to a non-resident taxpayer but the said non-resident taxpayer has taken into account the receipts in question in his business income and has already filed his income tax return under section 139(1), a copy of which is also produced by the learned Departmental Representative in support of his contention that the recipient non-resident indeed had a tax liability in respect of these amounts. As to what would have been the status of deductibility of such payments, if the recipient was a resident and all other facts were materially similar, we find guidance from decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal (supra), wherein a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, while dealing with provision regarding disallowance of payments made to a resident assessee without deduction of tax at source, has, inter alia, observed as follows:

4. Let us first take a look at the legislative amendment of section 40(a)(ia), vide Finance Act 2012, and try to appreciate the scheme of things as evident in the amended section. Second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced with effect from 1st April 2013, provides, that “where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the sa id proviso”. In other words, as long as the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot come into play either. To understand the effect of this proviso, it is useful to refer to first proviso to section 201(1), which is also introduced by the Finance Act 2012and effective1^st July 2012, and which provides that “any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident- (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and(iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed.” The unambiguous underlying principle seems to be that in the situations in which the assessee’s tax withholding lapse have not resulted in any loss to the exchequer, and this fact can be reasonably demonstrated, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default. The net effect of these amendments is that the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) shall not be attracted in the situations in which even if the assessee has not deducted tax at source from the related payments for expenditure but the recipient of the monies has taken into account these receipts in computation of his income, paid due taxes, if any, on the income so computed and has filed his income tax return under section 139(1). There is also a procedural requirement of issuance of a certificate, in the prescribed format, evidencing compliance of these conditions by the recipients of income, but that is essentially a procedural aspect of the matter. The legislative amendment so brought about by the Finance Act, 2012, so far as the scheme of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, substantially mitigates the rigour of, what otherwise seemed to be, a rather harsh disallowance provision.

5. As for the question as to whether this amendment can be treated as retrospective in nature, even in the case of Bharti Shipyard (supra)- a special bench decision vehemently relied upon in support of revenue’s case, the special bench, on principles, summed up the settled legal position to the effect that “any amendment of the substantive provision which is aimed at …………….(inter alia)removing unintended consequences to make the provisions workable has to be treated as retrospective notwithstanding the fact that the amendment has been given effect prospectively “. It was held that if the consequences sought to be remedied by the subsequent amendments were to be treated as “intended consequences”, the amendment could not be treated as retrospective in effect. The special bench then proceeded to draw a line of demarcation between intended consequences and unintended consequences, and finally the retrospectivity of first proviso was decided against the assessee on the ground that this special bench was of the considered view that ” the objective sought to be achieved by bringing out section 40(a)(ia) is the augmentation of TDS provisions” and went on to add that ” If, in attaining this main objective of augmentation of such provisions, the assessee suffers disallowance of any amount in the year of default, which is otherwise deductible, the legislature allowed it to continue “. It was further observed that “this is the cost which parliament has awarded to those assessees who fail to comply with the relevant provisions by considering overall objective of boosting TDS compliance”(Emphasis by underlining supplied by us). In other words, the amendment was held to be prospective because, in the wisdom of the special bench, the 2010 amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by inserting first proviso thereto, which is what the special bench was dealing with, was an ” intended consequence” of the provision of Section 40(a)(ia).

6. However, the stand so taken by the special bench was disapproved by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajinder Kumar (362 ITR 241). While doing so, Their Lordships observed that, “The object of introduction of Section 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that TDS provisions are scrupulously implemented without default in order to augment recoveries…….Failure to deduct TDS or deposit TDS results in loss of revenue and may deprive the Government of the tax due and payable” (Emphasis by underlining supplied by us)”. Having noted the underlying objectives, Their Lordships also put in a word of caution by observing that, “the provision should be interpreted in a fair, just and equitable manner”. Their Lordships thus recognized the bigger picture of realization of legitimate tax dues, as object of Section 40(a)(ia), and the need of its fair, just and equitable interpretation. This approach is qualitatively different from perceiving the object of Section 40(a)(ia) as awarding of costs on the “assessees who fail to comply with the relevant provisions by considering overall objective of boosting TDS compliance”. Not only the conclusions arrived at by the special bench were disapproved but the very fundamental assumption underlying its approach, i.e. on the issue of the object of Section 40(a)(ia), was rejected too. In any event, even going by Bharti Shipyard decision (supra), what we have to really examine is whether 2012 amendment, inserting second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), deals with an “intended consequence” or with an “unintended consequence”.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.