CIT vs. Crescent Export Syndicate (Calcutta High Court)
May, 16th 2013
S. 40(a)(ia) TDS: Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping is not good law
The assessee incurred expenditure on which TDS ought to have been deducted but was not. The AO disallowed the expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia). On appeal, the Tribunal relied on Merilyn Shipping & Transports 146 TTJ 1 (Viz) (SB) and held that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made only for the expenditure that is “payable” as of 31st March and not for the amounts that have already been “paid” during the year. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD reversing the Special Bench:
The key words in s. 40(a)(ia) are “on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII –B” and this makes it clear that it applies to all expenses. Nothing turns on the fact that the legislature used the word ‘payable’ and not ‘paid or credited’. Unless any amount is payable, it can neither be paid nor credited. If an amount has neither been paid nor credited, there can be no occasion for claiming any deduction. The Special Bench was wrong in making a comparison between the draft Bill and the enacted law to determine the intention of the Legislature. A comparison is permissible only between the pre-amendment and post amendment law to ascertain the mischief sought to be remedied or the object sought to be achieved by the amendment. The fact that the impact of s. 40(a)(ia) is harsh is no ground to read the same in a manner which was not intended by the legislature. The law was deliberately made harsh to secure compliance of the provisions requiring deductions of tax at source. It is not the case of an inadvertent error. For the same reason, the second proviso sought to become effective from 1st April, 2013 cannot be held to have already become operative prior to the appointed date. Consequently, the majority view in Merilyn Shipping & Transports is not acceptable.