2025 (8) TMI 744 - AT - Income Tax

No liability for interest under section 234B where retrospective transfer-pricing amendment made advance tax unforeseen at filing

ITAT held that the assessee was not liable for interest under section 234B because the tax adjustment arose from a retrospective amendment to ... Charging interest u/s. 234B - whether Appellant was not liable to pay any advance tax on due dates for payment of advance tax? - HELD THAT:- Interest u/s 234B was charged by the AO due to subsequent amendment in the provisions of the Act relating to Transfer pricing provisions. The assessee could not have foreseen amendment at the time of filing of return so as to work out its advance tax liability. The fact that the addition made on account of 'Excess credit period’ granted to associated enterprises was on account of this retrospective amendment is also clear from the fact that the ld.CIT (A) has upheld the adjustment relying on the said retrospective amendment. In such a situation, the assessee cannot be branded as a defaulter in payment of advance tax so as to attract interest u/s 234B of the Act. See EMAMI LIMITED [2011 (6) TMI 163 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] as held assessee before us can be called upon to pay interest in terms of se once the explanation was introduced or brought in with retrospective effect but by Finance Act, 2008. Then, there was no liability to pay interest in terms of this provision. That was because the assessee cannot be termed as defaulter in payment of advance tax computation on the basis of the un-amended (sic) provision therefore could not have been entertained. CIT(A) has erred in upholding charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act by the AO without appreciating the facts of the case in the right perspective - Appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED 1. Whether interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is chargeable when the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax on the due dates, particularly in light of a retrospective amendment affecting the income computation. 2. Whether retrospective amendment to transfer pricing provisions, introduced after the relevant assessment year, can trigger interest liability under section 234B for shortfall in advance tax payment. 3. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the rectification application under section 154 of the Act despite directions from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to dispose of the petition expeditiously. 4. The correctness of reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Others regarding mandatory charging of interest under section 234B in cases of shortfall in advance tax payment. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2: Chargeability of Interest under Section 234B in the Context of Retrospective Amendment Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: - Section 234B of the Income-tax Act mandates charging interest for default in payment of advance tax, calculated at 1% per month or part thereof on the unpaid assessed tax from 1st April of the assessment year. - The assessed tax is the final tax liability determined after considering declared income, deductions, TDS, advance tax, and other credits. - The Finance Act, 2012 introduced an Explanation to section 92B with retrospective effect from 1/4/2002, including 'excess credit period granted to associated enterprises' within the definition of 'international transaction,' thereby affecting transfer pricing adjustments. - Judicial precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court have held that retrospective amendments cannot impose interest liability under section 234B if there was no liability to pay advance tax as per the law prevailing at the relevant time. -- Calcutta High Court in Emami Ltd. emphasized that advance tax liability must exist as per the law prevailing on the last date for advance tax payment; retrospective amendments creating liability after the fact do not attract interest under section 234B. -- Bombay High Court in CIT vs JSW Energy Ltd. held that interest under section 234B is not warranted when shortfall arises due to retrospective amendments, as the assessee could not have defaulted in advance tax payment which was not legally due. -- Supreme Court in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. recognized that interest liability is quasi-punitive and cannot be imposed retrospectively for defaults that did not exist under the law at the relevant time. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: - The Court noted that at the time of filing the return for AY 2008-09, the assessee declared income of Rs. 29,686/- after claiming exemption under section 10A and paid taxes accordingly. - The transfer pricing adjustment resulting in addition of Rs. 2,88,55,641/- to income was based on a retrospective amendment introduced in 2012, which was not in force during the relevant financial year. - The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) held that interest under section 234B was mandatory once assessed tax liability was determined, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Others. - However, the Court distinguished the present facts, emphasizing that the liability to pay advance tax must exist under the law as it stood at the time of payment; retrospective amendments cannot create a default retrospectively. - The Court observed that the retrospective inclusion of 'excess credit period' as an international transaction was not foreseeable at the time of advance tax payment, and hence, no default occurred. - The Court relied on the principle that interest under section 234B is triggered only by failure to pay advance tax when it is due, and if no liability existed, no interest can be levied. Key Evidence and Findings: - The assessee's return filed on 27/09/2008 declared income under the then-prevailing law without the retrospective provision. - The transfer pricing adjustment was made pursuant to the retrospective amendment introduced in 2012. - The AO's order charging interest under section 234B was based on the adjusted income post-retrospective amendment. Application of Law to Facts: - Since the retrospective amendment was not in force at the time of advance tax payment, the assessee had no legal obligation to pay advance tax on the additional income arising from the transfer pricing adjustment. - Consequently, the shortfall in advance tax payment was not due to any default or failure by the assessee but was a consequence of a later retrospective amendment. - Therefore, charging interest under section 234B was not justified. Treatment of Competing Arguments: - The Revenue argued that interest under section 234B is mandatory once assessed tax liability is determined and relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Others. - The Court held that the said ruling does not override the fundamental requirement of existence of a liability to pay advance tax at the relevant time, which was absent here due to retrospective amendment. - The Court gave greater weight to the principle that retrospective amendments cannot impose punitive interest liabilities for defaults that did not exist under the law at the time. Conclusion: - Interest under section 234B cannot be levied on the shortfall in advance tax arising solely from retrospective amendments. - The assessee cannot be branded as a defaulter for non-payment of advance tax on income not chargeable under the law prevailing at the time of payment. - The charging of interest under section 234B in this case is therefore set aside. Issue 3: Rejection of Rectification Application under Section 154 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: - Section 154 of the Income-tax Act provides for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to dispose of the rectification application expeditiously. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: - The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification application and charged interest under section 234B despite the appellate direction. - The Court found that the AO failed to appreciate the genuine nature of the rectification request and the direction of the CIT(A). Application of Law to Facts: - Given that the interest charge was held to be unjustified, the rejection of the rectification application on this ground was improper. Conclusion: - The AO's rejection of the rectification application was erroneous and the application deserved to be allowed. Issue 4: Reliance on Supreme Court Decision in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Others Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: - The Supreme Court in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Others held that charging of interest under section 234B is mandatory where there is a default in payment of advance tax. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: - The Court acknowledged the binding nature of the decision but clarified that the mandatory nature of interest charging presupposes existence of a liability to pay advance tax. - In the present case, since the liability itself was created retrospectively, the mandatory charging principle did not apply. Conclusion: - Reliance on Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Others was misplaced without considering the absence of liability to pay advance tax at the relevant time. Overall Conclusion: - The appeal is allowed by deleting the interest charged under section 234B. - The rectification application under section 154 is to be allowed as per the appellate directions.