TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es the law as it earlier stood. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the amendment of Section 14A, which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, [ 2000 (7) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT] and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras ( 1992 (4) TMI 183 - SUPREME COURT] the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL FS Energy Development Company Ltd ( 2017 (8) TMI 732 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Cheminvest Limited [ 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . As clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in the case of PCIT vs. IL FS Energy Development Company Ltd . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income.] 5. However a perusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates that the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will apply in relation to the assessment year 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years. The relevant extract of Clauses 4, 5, 6 7 of the Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2022 are reproduced hereinbelow: 4. In order to make the intention of the legislation clear and to make it free from any misinterpretation, it is proposed to insert an Explanation to section 14A of the Act to clarify that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where exempt income has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such exempt income. 5. This amendment will take effect from 1st April, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment years. 12. In this state of the law, on 27-2-1999 the Finance Bill, 1999 substituted the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) (or what has been referred to by us as the 1999 Explanation). Section 5 of the Bill expressly stated that with effect from 1-4-2000, the substituted Explanation would read: Explanation .-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the income of the nature referred to in this clause payable for- (a) service rendered in India; and (b) the rest period or leave period which is preceded and succeeded by services rendered in India and forms part of the service contract of employment, shall be regarded as income earned in India. The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992) 193 ITR 49 (Ker)] while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] to hold that the Explanation was not declaratory but widened the scope of Section 9(1)(ii). It was further held that even if it were assumed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries Ltd. v. CIT [(1980) 1 SCC 139 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 67].) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision or an Explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section [See Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 585, 598 : AIR 1981 SC 1274, 1282 para 24]. If it is in its nature clarificatory then the Explanation must be read into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force [ See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT, (1997) 1 SCC 352, 354; CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 482, 506]. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective, irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are it is declared or for the removal of doubts . (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M.M Aqua Technologies Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 575. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 22. Second, a retrospective provision in a tax act which is for the removal of dou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
