1997 (9) TMI 95 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules against retroactive tax, protecting public company from unfair liability under Income-tax Act

The court ruled in favor of the public limited company, holding that it should not be subjected to additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax ... Additional Tax, Assessment Year, Retrospective Effect Issues Involved:The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions u/s 143(1)(a), 143(1A), and 234 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer, retrospective effect of amendments, and the imposition of additional tax.Interpretation of Provisions u/s 143(1)(a) and 143(1A):The case involved a public limited company that filed its return of income for the assessment year 1989-90, with the Assessing Officer adding a sum representing cash compensatory support not offered for tax. The Tribunal deleted the addition, leading to a reference on whether the deletion was justified. The Finance Act of 1990 retrospectively amended section 28 of the Income-tax Act, imposing additional tax under section 143(1A). The court discussed the implications of sections 143(1A)(a) and 143(1A), emphasizing that additional tax can be imposed if income is increased on voluntary disclosure, but in this case, the company couldn't have foreseen the retrospective tax liability.Retrospective Effect of Amendments and Tax Liability:The court considered the retrospective effect of the Finance Act of 1990, which made the company liable for tax on cash assistance received against exports. It highlighted that while the Legislature can enact laws retrospectively, fiscal statutes should not be given retrospective effect unless clearly intended. The court reasoned that imposing additional tax on the company for a law that came into force after filing the return would be unfair and unjust, citing principles of tax law and previous court decisions.Implications on Additional Tax and Justice:The court analyzed the provisions of sections 139, 143(1A), and 28(iiib) collectively, concluding that the company should not be held liable for additional tax due to a retrospective amendment. It referenced previous court decisions to support its stance, emphasizing the importance of applying the law in force during the assessment year. The court highlighted that the company had not misled the Assessing Officer and should not be penalized for a law that came into effect after filing the return.Conclusion:The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the company and against the Revenue. It concluded that the company should not be subjected to additional tax under section 143(1A) due to the retrospective nature of the amendment and the circumstances surrounding the filing of the return.