Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through Its Manager

Delay Condoned. Leave granted.

This appeal when alongwith several appeals were heard on 16.11.2016, this Court noticed that in batch of cases, four questions have arisen.

The present batch of cases of which Civil Appeal No. 2165 is a leading case relates only to Question No.2, which is to the following effect:-

Whether sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments?

Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?

All these appeals raising only above question of law have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For deciding all

these appeals, it shall be sufficient to refer facts and proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2012.

FACTS

Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2012

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 12.09.2011 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 947 of 2011 by which

judgment the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax following an earlier judgment of the Bombay High

Court dated 12.08.2010 in the case of Godrej Boyce and Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai &

Anr., reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.). The assessment year in issue is 2003-2004. The assessee (respondent in appeal) filed his return of

income on 01.12.2003 declaring a loss of Rs. 69,92,67,527/-. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer

vide its order dated 27.03.2006 held that during the year under consideration, the assessee company was in receipt of both taxable and nontaxable

dividend income. Accordingly, the dividend on investment exempt under Section 10(23G) was considered by the A.O. for the purpose of

disallowance U/S.14A. Hence, proportionate interest relating to investment on which exemption u/s.10(23G) is available as per the working

amounting to Rs. 26 crores was disallowed U/S.14A r.w.s. 10(23G) of the I.T. Act.

The assessee filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by order dated 05.03.2009. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT

allowed the assessee''s appeal relying on the Bombay High Court''s judgment in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy

Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumabi & Another., reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.). The ITAT held that Rule 8D is only prospective and

in the year under consideration Rule 8D was not applicable. ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the

Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication without invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. Against the order of ITAT, the revenue filed an appeal

before the High Court. The High Court following its earlier judgment of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy

Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (supra) dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax aggrieved by the judgment of the

High Court has come up in this appeal.

In the appeal, the only question, which has been pressed for our consideration is the first question, which was raised before the High Court,

which is to the following effect:-

Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon''ble ITAT is right in holding that applicability of Rule 8D is only

prospective in operation and for the year under assessment it was not applicable?

Thus, in this batch of appeals, the only question to be considered and answered is as to whether Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is prospective in

operation as held by the High Court or it is retrospective in operation and shall also be applicable in the assessment year in question as contended

by learned counsel for the revenue.

We have heard Shri Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel, Shri Arijit Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned

senior counsel, Shri Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel and other learned counsel have been heard for different assessees in this batch of appeals.

SUBMISSIONS

Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) submit that provisions of Section 14A being clarificatory in nature and Rule 8D is a procedural

provision which provided only a machinery for the implementation of sub-sections (2) and (3), Rule 8D is retrospective in nature. The machinery

provisions by which the charging section is to be implemented or workable are to be given retrospective effect, which is co-terminus with the

period of operation of the main charging provision. The charging section i.e. Section 14A admittedly being retrospective, the machinery provision,

i.e. Rule 8D has also to be retrospective.

Learned counsel for the revenue has placed reliance on judgments of this Court, i.e., Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut v. Sharvan Kumar

Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623; Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad v. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited, (2008) 9 SCC

622 and Commissioner of Income Tax - III v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana, (2014) 6 SCC 444.

Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee refuting the submission of learned counsel for the revenue contends that

provisions of Rule 8D are only prospective in nature. He submits that when a new liability is imposed by a statutory provision then the same cannot

be retrospective. He submits that provisions inserted by Rule 8D are new provision for computing the expenditure which can in no manner be

retrospective. He submits that Rule 8D was made applicable by Fifth Amendment Rules, 2008 providing in Clause 2 i.e. ""they shall come into

force from the date of their publication in the official gazette"". He submits that the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its circular dated 28.12.2006

while explaining the substance of the provision of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A clearly mention that the aforesaid provisions were to be

applicable from assessment year 2007-2008 onwards. Hence, Rule 8D, which is framed to give effect to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3)

cannot operate from any date prior to assessment year 2007-2008.

Shri Ajay Vohra, learned senior counsel appearing for assessee submits that Rule 8D has been amended by Income Tax (14th Amendment

Rules, 2016) w.e.f. 02.06.2016 by which a new methodology of computing the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the

total income has been brought in place. In event, the argument is accepted that Rule 8D is retrospective, which rule shall hold the field, whether

Rule 8D as inserted w.e.f. 24.03.2008 or one which has been substituted w.e.f. 02.06.2016? The amendment made w.e.f. 02.06.2016 reinforces

that the methodology of computing the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income is prospective and has been

change w.e.f. 02.06.2016, no other interpretation is permissible. He further submits that subordinate legislation is ordinarily prospective and Rule

8D being subordinate legislation can have no retrospective effect. Learned counsel for the assessees have also placed reliance on various decisions

of this Court, which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail.

Shri S.S.H. Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the assessee in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) 16185 of 2016 submits that Revenue has

already agreed before the ITAT that matter be remitted to Assessing Officer for fresh decision in light of judgment of the Bombay High Court in

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company (supra), hence, it had no jurisdiction to file an appeal before the High Court. He submits that High

Court has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing

Company (supra) after noticing the fact that no interim order was passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment. It

has been submitted by Shri Rizvi that no other question arose in the appeal before the High Court hence the Revenue has approached this Court

by filing this Special Leave Petition without any basis.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

Rule 8D has been framed to give effect to the provisions of Section 14A sub-section (2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as ""the Act""). The statutory scheme as delineated by Section 14A has to be understood before correctly appreciating the nature and

purport of Rule 8D. Section 14A was first inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.04.1962. Section 14A as originally

inserted reads as under:-

14A. Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. - For the purposes of computing the total income under this

Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of

the total income under this Act.

The purpose for which Section 14A was introduced was given in the explanatory memorandum issued with the Finance Bill, 2001, which

reads a sunder:-

Certain incomes are not includible while computing the total income as these are exempt under various provisions of the Act. There have

been cases where deductions have been claimed in respect of such exempt income. This in effect means that the tax incentive given by way

of exemptions to certain categories of income is being used to reduce also the tax payable on the nonexempt income by debiting the

expenses incurred to earn the exempt income against taxable income. This is against the basic principles of taxation whereby only the net

income, i.e., gross income minus the expenditure, is taxed. On the same analogy, the exemption is also in respect of the net income.

Expenses incurred can be allowed only to the extent they are relatable to the earning of taxable income. It is proposed to insert a new

section 14A so as to clarify the intention of the Legislature since the inception of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that no deduction shall be made

in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Income-

tax Act. The proposed amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1962 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the

assessment year 1962-1963 and subsequent assessment years.

Section 14A being retrospective in operation w.e.f. 01.04.1962, was being used by the Assessing Officers for reopening the assessments, the

Central Board of Direct Taxes came with a clarification vide Circular No. 11 of 2001 dated 23.07.2001. Para 4 of the Circular stated as follows:-

The Board have considered this matter and hereby directs that the assessments where the proceedings have become final before the first

day of April, 2001 should not be re-opened under section 147 of the Act to disallow expenditure incurred to earn exempt income by

applying the provisions of newly inserted section 14A of the Act.

By Finance Act, 2002, a statutory provision was also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A. What was clarified by the Circular have

been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:-

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the assessing officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order

enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any

assessment year beginning on or before the Ist day of April, 2001.

By Finance Act, 2006, Section 14A was numbered as sub-section (1) and after sub-section (1) sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted w.e.f.

01.04.2007 to the following effect:-

(2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the

total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of

the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does

not form part of the total income under this Act.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by

him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.

Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2006 in reference to the method for allocating expenditure in relation to exempt income

mentioned following:-

Under the existing provisions of the said section, it has been provided that for the purposes of computing the total income, no deduction

shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under

the Income-tax Act.

It is proposed to number the said section as sub-section (1) thereof and to insert a new sub-section (2) in the said section so as to provide

that the Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total

income, in accordance with such method as may be laid down by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by rules, if the Assessing Officer having

regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation

to income which does not form part of the total income. It is also proposed to provide that provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in

relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of

the total income.

This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2007 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2007-08 and

subsequent years.

After the changes made in Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2006, a Circular No.14/2006 dated 28.12.2006 was issued, in which Para 11 of

the Circular gave following explanation:-

11.1 Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides that for the purposes of computing the total income under Chapter-IV of the

said Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of

the total income under the Income-tax Act. In the existing provisions of section 14A, however, no method of computing the expenditure

incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income has been provided for. Consequently, there is considerable

dispute between the taxpayers and the Department on the method of determining such expenditure.

11.2 In view of the above, a new sub-section (2) has been inserted in section 14A so as to provide that it would be mandatory for the

Assessing Officer to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income in

accordance with such method as may be prescribed. However, the Assessing Officer shall follow the prescribed method if, having regard to

the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to

income which does not form part of the total income. Provisions of sub-section (2), will also be applicable in relation to a case where an

assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income.

11.3 Applicability From assessment year 2007-08 onwards.

Income Tax Rules, 1962 were amended by notification dated 24.03.2008 by which Rule 8D was inserted to the following effect:-

Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income.

8D (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee of a previous year, is not satisfied with -

(a) the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee; or

(b) the claim made by the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income

under the Act for such previous year, he shall determine the amount of expenditure in relation to such income in accordance with the

provisions of sub-rule (2).

(2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely :-

(i) the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income;

(ii) in a case where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest during the previous year which is not directly attributable to any

particular income or receipt, an amount computed in accordance with the following formula, namely :-

B

A X =

C

Where A= amount of expenditure by way of interest other than the amount of interest included in clause (i) incurred during the previous

year;

B= the average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance

sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year ;

C= the average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year;

(iii) an amount equal to one-half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the

total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year.

For the purposes of this rule, the ''total assets'' shall mean, total assets as appearing in the balance sheet excluding the increase on account

of revaluation of assets but including the decrease on account of revaluation of assets.

After setting out the legislative scheme of Section 14A and Rule 8D, now, we proceed to consider the submissions raised by learned counsel

for the parties on the question in issue.

Important Principles of Statutory Interpretation

The legislature has plenary power of legislation within the fields assigned to them, it may legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. It is a

settled principle of statutory construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implications made to

have retrospective operations. Legal Maxim ""nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis"", i.e. `a new law ought to regulate

what is to follow, not the past'', contain a principle of presumption of prospectively of a statute.

Justice G.P. Singh in ""Principles of Statutory Interpretation"" (14th Edition, in Chapter 6) while dealing with operation of fiscal statute elaborates

the principles of statutory interpretation in the following words:

Fiscal legislation imposing liability is generally governed by the normal presumption that it is not retrospective and it is a cardinal principle of

the tax law that the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication.

The above rule applies to the charging section and other substantive provisions such as a provision imposing penalty and does not apply to

machinery or procedural provisions of a taxing Act which are generally retrospective and apply even to pending proceedings. But a

procedural provision, as far as possible, will not be so construed as to affect finality of tax assessment or to open up liability which had

become barred. Assessment creates a vested right and an assessee cannot be subjected to reassessment unless a provision to that effect

inserted by amendment is either is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. A provision which in terms is retrospective and

has the effect of opening up liability which had become barred by lapse of time, will be subject to the rule of strict construction. In the

absence of a clear implication such a legislation will not be given a greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned; nor will it be

construed to authorize the Income-tax Authorities to commence proceedings which, before the new Act came into force, had by the expiry

of the period then provided become barred. But unambiguous language must be given effect to, even if it results in reopening of assessments

which had become final after expiry of the period earlier provided for reopening them. There is no fixed formula for the expression of

legislative intent to give retrospectivity to a taxation enactment......

A three-Judge Bench of this court in 1976 (1) SCC 906, Govind Das and others v. the Income Tax officer and another, noticing the settled

rules of interpretation laid down following in paragraph 11:

Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute

expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an

existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated

by Halsbury in Vol. 36 of the Laws of England (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that

all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie

prospective

and retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or

obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in

language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. If we apply this principle of

interpretation, it is clear that sub-section (6) of Section 171 applies only to a situation where the assessment of a Hindu undivided family is

completed under Section 143 or Section 144 of the new Act. It can have no application where the assessment of a Hindu undivided family

is completed under the corresponding provisions of the old Act. Such a case would be governed by Section 25A of the old Act which does

not impose any personal liability on the members in case of partial partition and to construe sub-section (6) of Section 171 as applicable in

such a case with consequential effect of casting of the members personal liability which did not exist under Section 25A, would be to give

retrospective operation to sub-section (6) of Section 171 which is not warranted either by the express language of that provision or by

necessary implication. Sub-section (6) of Section 171 can be given full effect by interpreting it as applicable only in a case where the

assessment of a Hindu undivided family is made under Section 143 or Section 144 of the new Act. We cannot, therefore, consistently with

the rule of interpretation which denies retrospective operation to a statute which has the effect of creating or imposing a new obligation or

liability, construe sub-section (6) of Section 171 as embracing a case where assessment of a Hindu undivided family is made under the

provisions of the old Act. Here in the present case, the assessments of the Hindu undivided family for Assessment Years 1950-51 to 1956-

57 were completed in accordance with the provisions of the old Act which included Section 25A and the Income Tax Officer was,

therefore, not entitled to avail of the provision enacted in sub-section (6) read with sub-section (7) of Section 171 of the new Act for the

purpose of recovering the tax or any part thereof personally from any members of the joint family including the petitioners.

A Constitution Bench of this court speaking through one of us, Dr. Justice A.K.Sikri, in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central

- 1 New Delhi) v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (1) SCC 1, while considering as to whether Proviso inserted in Section 113 of Income Tax

Act w.e.f. 01.06.2002 is prospective or clarificatory /retrospective noticed the general principles concerning retrospectivity. Following was laid

down by the Constitution Bench in Paras 28, 29 and 33:

Of the various rules guiding how legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a

legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern

current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of

today and in force and not tomorrow''s backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bedrock that every

human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset.

This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit: law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips v. Eyre, a

retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when

introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the

then existing law.

The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of ""fairness"", which must be the basis of every legal rule as was

observed in L''Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights

or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is

clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former

legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal

position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall

refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later.

A Constitution Bench of this Court in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhagwandas, while considering the nature of amendment to

Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as

follows: (AIR p. 1339, para 8)

... The amending clause does not seek to explain any preexisting legislation which was ambiguous or defective. The power of the High

Court to entertain a petition for exercising revisional jurisdiction was before the amendment derived from Section 115 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, and the legislature has by the amending Act not attempted to explain the meaning of that provision. An explanatory Act is

generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act.

A two-Judge Bench, speaking through one of us, Dr. Justice A. K. Sikri in Jayam and company v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors., (2016) 15

SCC 125, again reiterated the broad legal principles while testing a retrospective statute in Paragraphs 14 and 18 which is to the following effect:

With this, let us advert to the issue on retrospectivity. No doubt, when it comes to fiscal legislation, the legislature has power to make

the provision retrospectively. In R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, this Court stated broad legal principles while testing a

retrospective statute, in the following manner: (SCC pp. 73738 & 740, paras 2122 & 28)

(i) A law cannot be held to be unreasonable merely because it operates retrospectively;

(ii) The unreasonability must lie in some other additional factors;

(iii) The retrospective operation of a fiscal statute would have to be found to be unduly oppressive and confiscatory before it can be held to

be unreasonable as to violate constitutional norms;

(iv) Where taxing statute is plainly discriminatory or provides no procedural machinery for assessment and levy of tax or that is confiscatory,

courts will be justified in striking down the impugned statute as unconstitutional;

(v) The other factors being period of retrospectivity and degree of unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period;

(vi) Length of time is not by itself decisive to affect retrospectivity.

(Jayam and Co. case1, SCC Online Mad para 85)

The entire gamut of retrospective operation of fiscal statutes was revisited by this Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in CIT v.

Vatika Township (P) Ltd. in the following manner: (SCC p. 24, paras 3335)

A Constitution Bench of this Court in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhagwandas, while considering the nature of amendment to

Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as

follows: (AIR p. 1339, para 8)

`8. ... The amending clause does not seek to explain any preexisting legislation which was ambiguous or defective. The power of the High

Court to entertain a petition for exercising revisional jurisdiction was before the amendment derived from Section 115 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, and the legislature has by the amending Act not attempted to explain the meaning of that provision. An explanatory Act is

generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act.''

It would also be pertinent to mention that assessment creates a vested right and an assessee cannot be subjected to reassessment unless

a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. (See CED v. M.A.

Merchant.)

We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in Govind Das v. ITO, while holding Section

171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1-4-1962, the date on which the Income

Tax Act came into force: (SCC p. 914, para 11)

`11. Now it is a well-settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that, unless the terms of a statute

expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an

existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated

by Halsbury in Vol. 36 of the Laws of England (3rd Edn.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English courts is that

all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie

prospective and retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new

liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is

expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only.""''

The sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) were inserted in Section 14A by Finance Act, 2006. The memorandum explaining the provision in

Finance Bill, 2006, in reference to the methods for allocating expenditure in relation to exempt income as extracted above clearly mentions that

amendments brought by Finance Bill, 2006 will take effect from 01.04.2007. The last paragraph of memorandum was to the following effect:

this amendment will take effect from 01.04.2007 and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2007-08 and subsequent

years

The Constitution Bench of this court in the Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., (Supra), has taken into

consideration the notes of clause appended to the Finance Bill to decipher the nature of the legislative scheme. In paragraph 42.1, Constitution

Bench stated as follows:

42.1. ""Notes on Clauses"" appended to the Finance Bill, 2002 while proposing insertion of proviso categorically states that ""this amendment

will take effect from 1-6-2002"". These become epigraphic** words, when seen in contradistinction to other amendments specifically stating

those to be clarificatory or retrospective depicting clear intention of the legislature. It can be seen from the same Notes that a few other

amendments in the Income Tax Act were made by the same Finance Act specifically making those amendments retrospective. For example,

Clause 40 seeks to amend Section 92F. Clause (iiia) of Section 92F is amended ""so as to clarify that the activities mentioned in the said

clause include the carrying out of any work in pursuance of a contract"" (emphasis supplied). This amendment takes effect retrospectively

from 1-4-2002. Various other amendments also take place retrospectively. The Notes on Clauses show that the legislature is fully aware of

three concepts:

(i) prospective amendment with effect from a fixed date;

(ii) retrospective amendment with effect from a fixed anterior date; and

(iii) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature.

It is also relevant to know as to how the statutory provisions of Section 14A sub-section (2) and sub-section (3), Rule 8D was understood by

the Income Tax department itself. After insertion of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) in Section 14A by Finance Bill, 2006, circular dated

28.12.2006 was issued by the department wherein paragraph 11.3, following was stated:

11.3. Applicability from assessment year 2007-2008 onwards.

The methodology for determining amount of the expenditure in addition to income not includable in total income was for the first time

prescribed by Rule 8D as was envisaged in Section 14A sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). It is also relevant to notice that Constitution Bench in

the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., has also referred to and relied the CBDT circular to find out the understanding of

the Central Board of Direct Tax itself in context of Provision which was in issue in the above case.

Explanatory memorandum issued with the Finance Bill, 2006 and the CBDT circular dated 28.12.2006, thus, clearly indicates that department

understood that sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) was to be implemented with effect from assessment year 2007-2008. The Rule 8D

prescribing the method was brought into statute book with effect from 24.03.2008 to implement sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) with effect

from assessment year 2007-2008, is clear indicator of the fact that a new method for computing the expenditure was brought in by the rules which

was to be utilized for computing expenditure for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 and onwards.

When Section 14A was inserted by Finance Act, 2001, it was with retrospective effect with effect from 01.04.1962 where as Finance Act,

2006, by which sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) to Section 14A were inserted, it was with effect from 01.04.2006 which was mentioned in

clause 1(2) of Finance Act, 2006 which was to the following effect:

1(2). Save as otherwise provided in this Act, Sections 2 to 57 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 2006.

Rule 8D which was inserted by notification dated 24.03.2008. Rule 1 sub-rule (2) provides as under:

(1) These rules may be called the Income-tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008.

(2). They shall come into force from date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

It is, however, well settled that the mere date of enforcement of statutory provisions does not conclude that the statute is prospective in nature. The

nature and content of statute have to be looked into to find out the legislative scheme and the nature, effect and consequence of the statute.

The submissions which have been much pressed by the counsel for revenue is that the Section 14A of the Act being clarificatory in nature

having retrospective operation, Rule 8D, which is a machinery provisions have also to be held to be retrospective to make machinery provisions

workable.

It is to be noted that Section 14A was inserted by Finance Act, 2001 and the provisions were fully workable without their being any

mechanism provided for computing the expenditure. Although Section 14A was made effective from 01.04.1962 but Proviso was immediately

inserted by Finance Act, 2002, providing that Section 14A shall not empower assessing officer either to reassess under Section 147 or pass an

order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessees under Section 154, for any

assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2001. Thus, all concluded transactions prior to 01.04.2001 were made final and not allowed to be

reopened.

The memorandum of explanation explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 2006 has clearly mentioned that Section 14 sub-section (2) and

sub-section (3) shall be effective with effect from the assessment year 2006-07 alone which is another indicator that provision was intended to

operate prospectively.

Learned counsel for the appellant have placed heavy reliance on a three-Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax,

Meerut v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623. This Court in the above case had to interpret Rule 1BB, inserted in Wealth Tax,

1957 w.e.f. 01.04.1979. For Assessment Year 1977-78 and 1978-79 assessment order was passed on 08.02.1983 by which time Rule 1 BB

had been introduced in the Rule. The assessee contended that properties to be valued applying the Rule 1BB. The claim was rejected and

Assessing Officer had valued the immovable property independently of Rule 1BB.

Appeal preferred by assessee was allowed. Appeal by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. High Court

also answered the question against the Revenue, which was taken in appeal before this Court. This Court, after noticing the various principles of

statutory interpretation"" held that ""procedural law"" generally speaking is applicable to pending cases. Interpreting Rule 1BB following was held in

para 23 and 25:

We may now turn to the scope and content of Rule 1BB. The said rule merely provides a choice amongst well-known and well-settled

modes of valuation. Even in the absence of Rule 1BB it would not have have been objectionable, nor would there be any legal impediment,

to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1BB, namely, the method of capitalisation of income on a number of years'' purchase

value. The rule was intended to impart uniformity in valuations and to avoid vagaries and disparities resulting from application of different

modes of valuation in different cases where the nature of the property is similar.

On a consideration of the matter we are persuaded to the view that Rule 1BB is essentially a rule of evidence as to the choice of one of

the well accepted methods of valuation in respect of certain kinds of properties with a view to achieving uniformity in valuation and avoiding

disparate valuations resulting from application of different methods of valuation respecting properties of a similar nature and character. The

view taken by the High Courts, in our opinion, cannot be said to be erroneous.

This Court in the above case held that Rule 1BB shall be applicable even prior to the enforcement of the rule holding that the said rule merely

provides a choice amongst well-known and well-settled modes of valuation. It was held that even in the absence of Rule 1BB, it would not have

been objectionable to adopt the mode of valuation embodied in Rule 1BB, namely, the mode of capitalisation of income on a number of years

purchased value. The said judgment is, clearly, distinguishable in context of issue which has arisen before us. In the present case, methodology as

provided under Rule 8D was neither a well-known nor well-settled mode of computation. The new mode of computation was brought in place by

Rule 8D. No Assessing Officer, even in his imagination could have applied the methodology, which was brought in place by Rule 8B. Thus,

retrospective operation of Rule 8B cannot be accepted on the strength of law laid down by this Court in the above case.

The next judgment relied by the Revenue is Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ahmedabad v. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited, (2008) 9

SCC 622. In the above case, this Court considered the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2002 to Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act. This

Court held that the Parliament clarified the position by changing the expression ""any"" by ""if any"", which was not a substantive amendment creating

penalty for the first time. The amendment as specifically noted in the notes of ""Clauses"" was clarificatory in nature. In para 5 following was laid

down:

It is pointed out that prior to the amendment, Section 271(1)(c)(iii) read as follows:

271.(1)(c)(iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall

not exceed twice, the amount of the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been

furnished.

It was submitted that bare reading of the provision made the position clear that it was not necessary that income tax must be payable by the

assessee as sine qua non for imposition of penalty. The word ""any"" made the position clear that the penalty was in addition to any tax which

may be paid by the assessee. Therefore, even if no tax was payable, the penalty was leviable. It is in that context submitted that even prior

to the amendment it could not be read to mean that if no tax was payable by the assessee because of filing a return disclosing loss, the

assessee is not liable to pay penalty even if the assessee concealed and/or furnished inaccurate particulars. Because some High Courts took

the contradictory view, Parliament clarified the position by changing the expression ""any'' by ""if any"". This was not a substantive amendment

which created a penalty for the first time. The amendment by the Finance Act as specifically noted in the Notes on Clauses makes the

position clear that the amendment was clarificatory in nature and would apply to all assessments even prior to Assessment Year 2003-04.

The three-Judge Bench also referred to Departmental Circular dated 24.07.1976, which was found relevant for interpreting for finding out the

nature of the amended provision. The three-Judge Bench, further held in Para 16 to the following effect:

The law is well settled that the applicable provision would be the law as it existed on the date of the filing of the return. It is of relevance

to note that when any loss is returned in any return it need not necessarily be the loss of the previous year concerned. It may also include

carried-forward loss which is required to be set up against future income under Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, the applicable law on the

date of filing of the return cannot be confined only to the losses of the previous accounting years.

The three-Judge Bench, after noticing the earlier cases and principles of the statutory interpretation recorded following conclusion in para 21:

Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) is clarificatory and not substantive. The

view expressed to the contrary in Virtual case, (2007) 9 SCC 665 is not correct.

The above case is also clearly distinguishable and not applicable in the facts of the present case. It was held that amendments were clarificatory in

nature, hence shall operate retrospectively.

The Revenue has also relied on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana, (2014) 6

SCC 444. The above judgment has been relied by the Revenue for the preposition that it is the duty of the Court, while interpreting machinery

provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. In para 34 following was laid down:

It is the duty of the court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose. Wherever

the intention to impose liability is clear, the courts ought not be hesitant in espousing a commonsense interpretation to the machinery

provisions so that the charge does not fail. The machinery provisions must, no doubt, be so construed as would effectuate the object and

purpose of the statute and not defeat the same (Whitney v. IRC, 1926 AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas, (1940) 8 ITR 442, Indian

United Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Excess Profits Tax, (1955) 27 ITR 20(SC), and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT,(1963) 48 ITR 1(SC); CWT v.

Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons, (1994) 6 SCC 623; CIT v. National Taj Traders, (1980) 1 SCC 370; Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v.

CTO, (1981) 4 SCC 578. Francis Bennion in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, 5th Edn., Lexis Nexis in support of the aforesaid

proposition put forth as an illustration that since charge made by the legislator in procedural provisions is excepted to be for the general

benefit of litigants and others, it is presumed that it applies to pending as well as future proceedings.

There cannot be any dispute to the preposition that machinery provision of of taxing statute has to give effect to its manifest purposes. But the

applicability of the machinery provision whether it is prospective or retrospective depends on the content and nature of the Statutory Scheme. In

the above case, the Court was not considering the question of prospectivity or retrospectivity of the machinery provision, hence the above case

also does not help the appellant in the present case.

The Constitution Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township (supra), after noticing the principle of

Statutory Interpretation, as noted above, has laid down the following in para 36, 37 and 39:

In CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 1633, this Court held that as the liability to pay tax is computed according

to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year i.e. the first day of April, any change in law affecting tax liability after that date

though made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment for that

year.

Answer to the reference

When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion

is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative

in nature.

Reasons in support

The first and foremost poser is as to whether it was possible to make the block assessment with the addition of levy of surcharge, in the

absence of proviso to Section 113? In Suresh N. Gupta itself, it was acknowledged and admitted that the position prior to the amendment

of Section 113 of the Act whereby the proviso was added, whether surcharge was payable in respect of block assessment or not, was

totally ambiguous and unclear. The Court pointed out that some assessing officers had taken the view that no surcharge is leviable. Others

were at a loss to apply a particular rate of surcharge as they were not clear as to which Finance Act, prescribing such rates, was applicable.

It is a matter of common knowledge and is also pointed out that the surcharge varies from year to year. However, the assessing officers

were in determinative about the date with reference to which rates provided for in the Finance Act were to be made applicable. They had

four dates before them viz.:(Suresh N. Gupta case, (2008) 4 SCC 362, SCC p. 379, para 35)

(i) Whether surcharge was leviable with reference to the rates provided for in the Finance Act of the year in which the search was initiated;

or

(ii) the year in which the search was concluded; or

(iii) the year in which the block assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Act were initiated; or

(iv) the year in which block assessment order was passed.

As noted above, that Rule 8D has again been amended by Income Tax (Fourteenth Amendment) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 02.06.2016, by which

Rule 8D sub-rule (2) has been substituted by a new provision which is to the following effect:

[(2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely:-

(i) the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income; and

(ii) an amount equal to one per cent of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of

investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of total income:

Provided that the amount referred to in clause (i) and clause (ii) shall not exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee.]

The method for determining the amount of expenditure brought in force w.e.f. 24.03.2008 has been given a gobye and a new method has been

brought into force w.e.f. 02.06.2016, by interpreting the Rule 8D retrospective, there will be a conflict in applicability of 5th & 14th Amendment

Rules which clearly indicates that the Rule has a prospective operation, which has been prospectively changed by adopting another methodology.

One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee also needs to be noticed. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that

it is well-settled that subordinate legislation ordinarily is not retrospective unless there are clear indication to the same. Reliance has been placed on

judgment of this Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Shiv Karampal Sahu, (2009) 11 SCC 453. In para 17 following has been stated:

Ordinarily, a subordinate legislation should not be construed to be retrospective in operation. The Circular Letter dated 7-5-2003 was

given a prospective effect. The father of the respondent died on 19-5-2000. There is nothing to show that even Circular dated 9-8-2000

had been given retrospective effect. In any view of the matter, as the State of Jharkhand in the Circular Letter dated 7-5-2003 adopted the

earlier circular letters issued by the State of Bihar only in respect of cases where death had occurred after 15-10-2000 i.e. the date from

which the State of Jharkhand came into being, the High Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in giving retrospective effect thereto

indirectly which it could not do directly. Reasons assigned by the High Court, for the reasons aforementioned, are unacceptable.

There is no indication in Rule 8D to the effect that Rule 8D intended to apply retrospectively.

Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of

sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 14A as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in the Finance

Bill, 2006 and the departmental understanding as reflected by Circular dated 28.12.2006, we are of the considered opinion that Rule 8D was

intended to operate prospectively.

It is relevant to note that impugned judgment in this appeal relies on earlier judgment of Bombay High Court in Godrej and Boyce

Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another, (2017) 7 SCC 421, where the Division Bench

of the Bombay High court after elaborately considering the principles to determine the prospectivity or retrospectivity of the amendment has

concluded that Rule 8D is prospective in nature. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed

in this court which has been decided by vide its judgment reported in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy

Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 421. This Court, while deciding the above appeal repelled the challenge raised by

the assessee regarding vires of Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions

Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifically left the

question of retrospectivity to be decided in other appeals filed by the Revenue. We thus have proceeded to decide the question of retrospectivity

of Rule 8D in these appeals.

In view of our opinion as expressed above, dismissal of the appeal by the Bombay High Court is fully sustainable. As held above, the Rule 8D

is prospective in operation and could not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09.

In result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.