2014 (2) TMI 1032 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules Rule 8D not retrospective, directs Tribunal review.

The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules cannot be applied retrospectively. The Court rejected the ... Retrospective effect of Section 14A and Rule 8D of the Act - Disallowance of Expenses - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) inserted in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from April 1, 2007 and rule 8D inserted in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on March 24, 2008 were procedural and retrospective and were applicable for the assessment years 2001-02, 2004-05 and 2005-06 – Held that:- Assessee contended that Rule 8D cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be retrospective in nature – Relying upon Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - The provisions of rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, shall apply with effect from the assessment year 2008-09 – the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act - the department must be deemed to have accepted the position that Rule 8D is only prospective in nature - the department has to have some consistency in its views and it cannot blow hot and cold at its sweet-will – Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:1. Interpretation of the retrospective application of provisions in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the legality and validity of Rule 8D.3. Disallowance under Section 14A for specific assessment years.Issue 1 - Retrospective Application of Provisions:The case involved a dispute regarding the retrospective application of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The appellant argued that Rule 8D cannot be considered retrospective, citing judgments from the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court. These judgments emphasized that Rule 8D operates prospectively, not retrospectively. The appellant pointed out that the department had not raised the issue of Rule 8D's retrospective nature in a previous appeal, indicating acceptance of its prospective application. The respondent did not contest this position but requested a remand to the Assessing Officer for recomputing the disallowable expenditure.Issue 2 - Tribunal's Jurisdiction:The Tribunal was questioned on its jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality and validity of Rule 8D. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was based on the views expressed by a Special Bench and that they were bound by those views. The Tribunal reversed the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the relevant assessment years, relying on the procedural nature of Rule 8D. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the appellant, emphasizing the need for consistency in the department's views on the retrospective nature of Rule 8D.Issue 3 - Disallowance under Section 14A:For the assessment years in question, the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the disallowed sum, leading to appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) based on the procedural and retrospective nature of Rule 8D. The appellant contested this decision, arguing for the prospective application of Rule 8D and highlighting previous judgments supporting this interpretation.In conclusion, the High Court ruled against the retrospective application of Rule 8D, favoring the appellant's argument. The Court declined the remand request to the Assessing Officer, as the matter had already been considered at various stages. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the case in light of the Court's interpretation on the questions of law raised.