Delhi High Court: Section 115JB Inapplicable to Electricity Companies Before 2012— “MAT Provisions Cannot Apply Where Machinery Provisions Are Inoperable”

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the assessee (electricity distribution company), confirming that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (MAT provision), were inapplicable to electricity companies for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. The court concluded that the machinery provisions under Section 115JB were inoperable because the requirement to prepare profit and loss accounts under the Companies Act, 1956, as stipulated by Section 115JB, conflicted with the statutory requirement for electricity companies to prepare their accounts according to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and other specific laws. Therefore, the court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had deleted the adjustments made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under Section 115JB.

Facts:

1. Assessee’s Business: The assessee, an electricity distribution company, is engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity. It is a joint venture between Tata Power Company Limited and the Government of NCT of Delhi.
2. Tax Returns: The assessee filed its return for AY 2006-07 declaring ₹29.76 crore under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act and ₹162.35 crore as book profits under Section 115JB.
3. Assessment by AO: The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the total income at ₹121.30 crore, and the book profit under Section 115JB at ₹162.64 crore. The AO adjusted the book profits by adding ₹29.17 lakh on account of dividend income exempt under Section 10(34) without considering any related expenditure.
4. Appeal to CIT(A): The CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee, but it also enhanced the book profits by ₹27.52 crore due to provisions for doubtful debts. This led to an increase in MAT from ₹162.35 crore to ₹189.87 crore, resulting in an additional tax liability of ₹2.32 crore, excluding interest.
5. Appeal to ITAT: The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which deleted the enhancement to book profits and ruled that MAT provisions under Section 115JB did not apply to the assessee.
6. Revenue’s Appeal: The Revenue challenged the ITAT’s decision in the Delhi High Court, which led to the current ruling.

Issues:

The core legal issue was whether Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, which mandates the application of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) on book profits, applied to the assessee for the Assessment Year 2006-07.

• Primary Legal Question: Was the ITAT justified in deleting the additions made to the book profits under Section 115JB for the AY 2006-07, given that the assessee was an electricity distribution company?

Petitioner’s (Revenue’s) Arguments:

1. Objective of Section 115JB: The Revenue argued that Section 115JB was intended to bring “zero tax companies” under the tax net by levying MAT. This provision was meant to ensure that companies, even those availing tax exemptions, would contribute a minimum level of tax based on their book profits.
2. Distinguishing Kerala High Court’s Judgment: The Revenue claimed that the Kerala High Court decision in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax was based on Section 115JA, a predecessor to Section 115JB. The Revenue argued that Section 115JA was replaced with Section 115JB, and the legal context had changed.
3. Electricity Companies Not Exempt: The Revenue pointed out that the Explanatory Notes to the Finance Act, 2000 did not exempt electricity companies from MAT, unlike other sectors such as banking and insurance.
4. Inapplicability of Kerala HC’s Decision: The Revenue argued that the Kerala High Court’s ruling did not apply because it concerned a government-owned company under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, while the assessee was a joint venture with significant private sector involvement (51% private shareholding).
5. Impact of 2012 Amendment: The Revenue contended that the 2012 amendment to Section 115JB clarified that electricity companies would be subject to MAT, and argued that this change did not grant retrospective relief to electricity companies.

Respondent’s (Assessee’s) Arguments:

1. Inapplicability of Section 115JB: The assessee argued that electricity companies are required to prepare their accounts under special statutes, including the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, rather than under the Companies Act, 1956. Section 115JB mandates the use of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, which is not applicable to electricity companies.
2. Reliance on Kerala and Bombay HC Judgments: The assessee relied on the Kerala High Court’s decision in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (2010) and the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax-LTU v. Union Bank of India (2019), both of which held that electricity companies were not subject to MAT under Section 115JB before its 2012 amendment.
3. Finance Act, 2012 Amendment: The assessee argued that the Finance Act, 2012, introduced a substantive amendment to Section 115JB, making electricity companies subject to MAT only from AY 2013-14. Therefore, the provision did not apply to AY 2006-07.

Analysis of the Law:

• Section 115JB: This section mandates that if the income tax payable on a company’s total income, as computed under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, is less than 10% of its book profits, the book profits will be treated as the total income, and MAT will be levied at 10% of the book profit. It requires companies to prepare their accounts in accordance with the provisions of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956.
• Special Statutes for Electricity Companies: Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956 allows electricity companies to prepare their accounts under their specific regulatory Acts, not under Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. This created a conflict with the requirements of Section 115JB.
• Inoperability of Machinery Provisions: The court found that Section 115JB’s requirement to prepare accounts under Schedule VI was incompatible with the requirement for electricity companies to follow their governing Acts, making the provisions inoperable.
• Supreme Court Validation: The Supreme Court had upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, affirming that electricity companies were not subject to MAT under the old regime before the 2012 amendment.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Kerala HC (2010): The court ruled that Section 115JB did not apply to electricity companies due to the inoperability of the machinery provisions.
2. Bombay HC (2019): The court similarly ruled that MAT provisions could not apply to banking companies, which had the same conflict with the machinery provisions, citing the inoperability of the machinery provisions under Section 115JB.
3. Rajasthan HC (2022): This court also sided with the assessee, reaffirming the Kerala HC and Bombay HC decisions.

Court’s Reasoning:

• Inoperability of Machinery Provisions: The core reasoning of the court was that the machinery provisions of Section 115JB, which required compliance with Schedule VI of the Companies Act, were inoperable for electricity companies since they were mandated to prepare accounts under their special statutes.
• Consistency with Precedents: The court placed significant weight on the consistent rulings of other High Courts and the Supreme Court, all of which had concluded that MAT did not apply to electricity companies before the 2012 amendment.
• No Retrospective Application: The court noted that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2012, was prospective and did not apply to earlier assessment years.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court concluded that the ITAT had correctly deleted the additions made under Section 115JB for the AY 2006-07. The court answered the legal question in favor of the assessee, holding that Section 115JB did not apply to electricity companies for the relevant assessment year.

Implications:

1. Legal Precedent: The ruling strengthens the precedent that electricity companies were exempt from MAT under Section 115JB prior to the 2012 amendment.
2. Prospective Nature of Amendments: The judgment underscores that the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 115JB applied only from AY 2013-14 onwards, ensuring that MAT provisions were not applied retrospectively.
3. Impact on Future Litigation: The decision provides clarity for other electricity companies and similar entities regarding the non-applicability of MAT before the 2012 amendment.

This case highlights the complexities in applying tax laws to companies governed by special statutes and the role of judicial precedents in clarifying legislative intent.

Also Read – Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Penalty Under Section 271AAA of Income Tax Act: Holds Penalty Not Applicable on ₹2.27 Crores Due to Compliance with Statutory Conditions, Imposes 10% Penalty on ₹2.49 Crores for Non-Disclosure During Search