Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"17. We have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through the record. We have carefully gone through the relevant provisions i.e. explanation 2A and 2B to section 43(6) and have also considered the respective amendments brought out from time to time in the said provisions. We find that the explanations 2A and 2B were inserted by Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 01.04.2000. The relevant words under clause 2A were "written down value of the block of assets of the demerged company" whereas the corresponding relevant words under clause 2B were "the value of assets as appearing in the books of accounts". However, a subsequent amendment was made vide Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. the same date i.e. 01.04.2000 vide which the words "the value of the assets as appearing in the books of account" were substituted with the words "written down value of the transferred assets as appearing in the books of account". Now we have to see whether any change was brought out with the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2000 into the relevant provisions? We find that at the time of insertion of the relevant provisions, the value of the assets of the demerged company was to be taken as its 'written down value' under clause 2A, whereas under clause 2B, the corresponding written down value of the assets of the resulting company was mentioned as the 'value of assets as appearing in the books of account'. However, immediately, before these provisions come into operation, an amendment was brought out in explanation 2B and the relevant words were substituted with 'written down value of the transferred assets'. However, the other relevant words "as appearing in the books of account" were not omitted. If we take the contention of the assessee as correct, then in that event there would not have been any impact or change in the interpretation of the relevant provisions even after the amendment made by Finance Act, 2000. If, as contended by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the intention of the legislature has been that the written down value as appearing in the books of account maintained under the Companies Act be adopted, then it will not be understandable as to what was the purpose of immediate amendment made vide Finance Act, 2000, subsequent to the insertion of the relevant provisions made vide Finance Act, 1999 both w.e.f. 01.04.2000.
17.1 When we read the relevant words prior to amendment made vide Finance Act, 2000 i.e. 'the value of assets as appearing in the books of account' and the words appearing after the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2000 i.e. 'the written down value of the assets as appearing in the books of account', and if the contention of the assessee is to be accepted, then, the words appearing before amendment and after amendment made vide Finance Act 2000, will give the same meaning, resulting to inference that the legislature has not made any amendment in the said section and the said amendment will become meaningless and rendered redundant. However, in our view, the Parliament has not made a futile exercise in amending the relevant provisions vide Finance Act, 2000. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the Ld. AO after referring to the memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Bill, 1999 that provisions relating to the demerger of companies were introduced based on certain principles one of which was that the demergers should be tax neutral and should not 8488+5Godrej & Boyce attract any additional tax liability. The value of the assets of the demerged company should be the same when transferred to the resulting company. The amendment made by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2004, in our view, is curative and clarificatory in nature. The omission of the words "as appearing in the books of account" have neither taken away nor affected any rights of the assessee which were accrued to him before the said amendment. The amendment made vide Finance Act, 2003 has just removed the ambiguity. It has neither taken away any right of any assessee nor has given any new right to the Revenue.
18. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal in the case of "Godrej Industries Ltd."

(supra) and we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in the said case that the emphasis of the legislature in explanation 2B after the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2000 was that the value of the block of assets in the case of resulting company shall be the written down value of the assets of the demerged company immediately before the demerger. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities that only the written down value of the transferred assets of the demerged company as per the accounts maintained under the Income Tax Act shall accordingly constitute the written down value of the block of assets of the resulting company.

6. CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. and others - Civil appeal No.8750 of 2014 decided on September 5, 2014.

20.We have perused the aforesaid decisions and found that the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decisions are unanimous to hold that where a substantive right has been affected by the amendment, the amendment, if not so expressively provided under the relevant statute, will have to be taken prospectively. However, the above decisions cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, as observed above by us, the omission of the words "as appearing in the books of account" neither have in any way affected any substantive right already vested in the assessee nor has taken away any such right which was accruing to the assessee before such omission. In fact, the curative amendment was made by the Parliament vide Finance Act, 2000 and only the ambiguity has been removed vide Finance Act, 2003 so as to bring clarity. In our humble view, whatever rights had accrued to the assessee in view of the ambiguity in the provisions at the time of their insertion vide Finance Act, 1999, the same had been taken away/clarified immediately by removing the ambiguity through amendment made vide Finance Act, 2000. Hence, without going into the details of the facts of the various case laws, we have no hesitation to hold that the proposition laid therein cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. These grounds are accordingly decided against the assessee."