Case: Commnr. Of Income Tax, Gauhati  Vs. M/S. Sati Oil Udyog Ltd.

correctly declared by the assessee. In such a situation, this Court held:- “We must therefore eschew literalness in the interpretation of Section 52 Sub-section (2) and try to arrive at an interpretation which avoids this absurdity and mischief and makes the provision rational and sensible, unless of course, our hands are tied and we cannot find any escape from the tyranny of the literal interpretation. It is now a well settled rule of construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court may modify the language used by the legislature or even do some violence to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction, Vide: Luke v. Inland Revenue Commissioner [1963] AC 557. The Court may also in such a case read into the statutory provision a condition which, though not expressed, is implicit as constituting the basic assumption underlying the statutory provision. We think that, having regard to this well recognised rule of interpretation, a fair and reasonable construction of Section 52 sub-section (2) would be to read into it a condition that it would apply only where the consideration for the transfer is under-stated or in other words, the assessee has actually received a larger consideration for the transfer than what is declared in the instrument of transfer and it would have no application in case of a bonafide transaction where the full value of the consideration for the transfer is correctly declared by the assessee.” The Court further went on to hold:- “Thus it is not enough to attract the applicability of Sub-section (2) that the fair market value of the capital asset transferred by the assessee as on the date of the transfer exceeds the full value of the consideration declared in respect of the transfer by not less than 15% of the value so declared, but it is furthermore necessary that the full value of the consideration in respect of the transfer is understated or in other words, shown at a lesser figure than that actually received by the assessee. Subsection (2) has no application in case of an honest and bonafide transaction where the consideration in respect of the transfer has been correctly declared or disclosed by the assessee, even if the condition of 15% difference between the fair market value of the capital asset as on the date of the transfer and the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee is satisfied. If therefore the Revenue seeks to bring a case within sub-section (2), it must show not only that the fair market value of the capital asset as on the date of the transfer exceeds the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee by not less than 15% of the value so declared, but also that the consideration has been under-stated and the assessee has actually received more than what is declared by him. There are two distinct conditions which have to be satisfied before sub-section (2) can be invoked by the Revenue and the burden of showing that these two conditions are satisfied rests on the Revenue. It is for the Revenue to show that each of these two conditions is satisfied and the Revenue cannot claim to have discharged this burden which lies upon it, by merely establishing that the fair market value of the capital asset as on the date of the transfer exceeds by 15% or more the full value of the consideration declared in respect of the transfer and the first condition is therefore satisfied. The Revenue must go further and prove that the second condition is also satisfied. Merely by showing that the first condition is satisfied, the Revenue cannot ask the Court to presume that the second condition too is fulfilled, because even in a case where the first condition of 15% difference is satisfied, the transaction may be a perfectly honest and bonafide transaction and there may be no under-statement of the consideration. The fulfilment of the second condition has therefore to be established independently of the first condition and merely because the first condition is satisfied, no inference can necessarily follow that the second condition is also fulfilled. Each condition has got to be viewed and established independently before sub-section (2) can be invoked and the burden of doing so is clearly on the Revenue. It is a well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the Revenue and the second condition being as much a condition of taxability as the first, the burden lies on the Revenue to show that there is understatement of the consideration and the second condition is fulfilled. Moreover, to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration, on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration beyond that declared by him.” Finally, the Court held: “We must therefore hold that Sub-section (2) of Section 52 can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer has been understated by the assessee or in other words, the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than what is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such under-statement or concealment is on the Revenue. This burden may be discharged by the Revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has not correctly declared or disclosed the consideration received by him and there is understatement of concealment of the consideration in respect of the transfer. Subsection (2) has no application in case of an honest and bonafide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared or disclosed by him, and there is no concealment or suppression of the consideration.”

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. On a cursory reading of the provision, it is clear that the object of Section 143(1A) is the prevention of evasion of tax. By the introduction of this provision, persons who have filed returns in which they have sought to evade the tax properly payable by them is meant to have a deterrent effect and a hefty amount of 20% as additional income tax is payable on the difference between what is declared in the return and what is assessed to tax.Even on a reading of Section 143 1(a) which is referred to in Section 143 (1A), a loss is envisaged as being declared in a return made under Section 139. It is clear, therefore, that the retrospective amendment made in 1993 would only be clarificatory of the position that existed in 1989 itself.In the present case as well, all assessees were put on notice in 1989 itself that the expressioncontained in Section 143 (1A) would be wide enough to include losses also. That being the case, on facts here there is in fact no retrospective imposition of additional tax – such tax was imposable on losses as well from 1989 itself.In the present case, the question that arises before us is also as to whether bonafide assessees are caught within the net of Section 143 (1A). We hasten to add that unlike in J.K. Synthetics case, Section 143 (1A) has in fact been challenged on Constitutional grounds before the High Court on the facts of the present case. This being the case, we feel that since the provision has the deterrent effect of preventing tax evasion, it should be made to apply only to tax evaders.On a strictly literal interpretation of Section 52 (2), the moment the fair market value of a capital asset by an assessee exceeds the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee, in an amount of not less than 15% of the value declared, the full value for the consideration for such capital asset shall be taken to be the fair market value. A strictly literal reading would take into the tax net persons who have entered into bonafide transactions where the full value of the consideration for the transfer is correctly declared by the assessee.