- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M.P Electricity Board.
Factual and Procedural Background
The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking to compel the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) to refer three purported questions of law to the High Court. Shri V.K. Tankha, advocate, appeared for the petitioner and was heard on admission.
The underlying dispute concerned the assessee's claim for investment allowance for the assessment year 1981-82 under Section 32A(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim and the Tribunal confirmed that disallowance by an order dated June 21, 1989. Subsequently, Section 32A(4) was amended with retrospective effect from April 1, 1976. The assessee applied to the Tribunal for rectification of its earlier order under Section 154 of the Act. The Revenue opposed the rectification application, but the Tribunal allowed rectification and declined to refer the questions to the High Court. The Revenue then sought this Court's intervention under Section 256(2) to compel a reference.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal can be compelled under Section 256(2) to refer questions of law to the High Court arising out of its rectification order under Section 154.
- Whether a rectification under Section 154 of an earlier order is permissible when a statutory amendment has retrospective effect and, by legal fiction, renders the earlier order inconsistent with the law as retrospectively enacted (i.e., whether such inconsistency amounts to a mistake apparent on the face of the record).
Arguments of the Parties
Revenue's Arguments
- The refusal of the Tribunal to grant the investment allowance was correct as per the law as it actually stood at the relevant time of the original order.
- The subsequent retrospective amendment to Section 32A(4) cannot serve as a ground for review or rectification of the earlier order.
- Accordingly, the Tribunal should have referred the questions of law to the High Court rather than allowing rectification without a reference.
Assessee's Position (as reflected in the opinion)
- It is not disputed by the Revenue that, if the amended provision (with retrospective effect) is treated as having been the law at the relevant time, the assessee would be entitled to the investment allowance for the assessment year in question.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143 | The principle that where a statute is amended with retrospective effect, by legal fiction the amended provision is to be read as having been in force at the earlier time; if an earlier order is inconsistent with the retrospectively effective provision, that inconsistency constitutes a mistake of law apparent on the face of the record and is rectifiable. | The Court relied on this precedent to conclude that the Tribunal correctly treated the earlier order as suffering from an apparent error in view of the retrospective amendment and therefore was justified in declining to make a reference to the High Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered the Revenue's contention that the original refusal to grant investment allowance was correct according to the law as it actually stood at the time the order was made, and that retrospective amendment cannot be a ground for rectification. The Court rejected that submission.
The Court explained the legal fiction inherent in retrospective amendments: when a provision is amended retrospectively, the fiction is that the law at the relevant earlier time is to be treated as if it were the law as amended. Applying that fiction, an order made earlier which is inconsistent with the retrospectively effective law must be regarded as having been passed in contravention of the law as retrospectively enacted. The Court characterised such inconsistency as an "error apparent on the face of the record."
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M.K. Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which addressed an analogous situation: an earlier valid-looking order became inconsistent with a later retrospective amendment and was held to be rectifiable as a mistake of law apparent on the record. The Court found that the reasoning of that precedent "squarely applies" to the present facts and to the exercise of the power under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act.
On this basis the Court held that the Tribunal was justified in allowing rectification and in declining to refer the questions to the High Court.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The petition is DISMISSED.
Implications:
- The Tribunal's decision to allow rectification under Section 154 in light of the retrospective amendment to Section 32A(4) and to decline to refer questions of law to the High Court is upheld.
- The Court treated the retrospectively effective amendment as creating a legal fiction that the amended law was in force at the earlier time, thereby rendering the earlier order inconsistent with the law and constituting a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
- The opinion does not purport to set a new precedent beyond applying the cited Supreme Court authority; no broader implications beyond the direct effect on the parties and the validation of the Tribunal's course of action are discussed in the opinion.
1. Shri V.K. Tankha, advocate, for the petitioner. He is heard on admission.
2. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is filed by the Revenue seeking to compel the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court three purported questions of law. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue.
3. The dispute is regarding the investment allowance relating to the assessment year 1981-82 claimed by the assessee under Section 32A(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim and the same was confirmed by the Tribunal by order dated June 21, 1989. Subsequently, Section 32A(4) was amended retrospectively from April 1, 1976. Thereafter, the assessee moved the Tribunal for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. The application was opposed by the Revenue but was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to refer to the High Court the questions arising in relation to the rectification order.
4. It is not the contention of the Revenue that even under the amended Act, the assessee is not eligible for investment allowance. On the other hand, it is the common case that if the law as amended was the law in force during the relevant year corresponding to the assessment year, the assessee would be entitled to the allowance. According to the Revenue, the refusal to grant the allowance was correct as the law actually stood at the relevant time and the fact that retrospectivity was given to a subsequent amendment cannot be a ground for review or rectification.
5. We are not able to agree with the submission made on behalf of the Revenue. When the law is amended with retrospective effect, the fiction is that all must proceed on the basis that the law at the relevant time was the law as amended subsequently. That being so, the legal fiction is apparently capable of being carried forward to hold that when the earlier order was passed, it was passed in contravention of the amended law which by fiction is deemed to be in force at that time. This clearly is an error apparent on the face of record.
6. The matter has been made clear by the Supreme Court in M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143. In that case, under the law actually existing at the relevant time, the assessee was entitled to credit for Rs. 50,603 being interest at two per cent. on tax paid in advance under Section 18A(5) of the Act. The provision was subsequently amended with retrospective effect. Under the amended law, the assessee would be entitled to only Rs. 21,157 as interest. The Supreme Court observed (at page 149) :
"At the time when the Income-tax Officer applied his mind to the question of rectifying the alleged mistake, there can be no doubt that he had to read the principal Act as containing the inserted proviso as from April 1, 1952. If that be the true position then the order which he made giving credit to the respondent for Rs. 50,603.15-0 is plainly and obviously inconsistent with a specific and clear provision of the statute and that must inevitably be treated as a mistake of law apparent from the record. If a mistake of fact apparent from the record of the assessment order can be rectified under Section 35, we see no reason why a mistake of law which is glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified. Prima facie it may appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment Act. But such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act. If, as a result of the said fiction, we must read the subsequently inserted proviso as forming part of section 18a(5) of the principal act as from April 1, 1952, the conclusion is inescapable that the order in question is inconsistent with the provisions of the said proviso and must be deemed to suffer from a mistake apparent from the record."
7. The above reasoning squarely applies to the facts of the present case and in relation to the exercise of power under Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in declining to make the reference. The petition is dismissed.
Alert