Author: abhishek

Posted on

“Require” before you aspire the assessee to afford the facility for conducting survey says ITAT Amritsar

ITAT Amritsar Bench in an interesting decision of Smt. Kailash Devi ITA 347/ASR/ 2015 pronounced on 05-04-2016 on conduct of survey had an occasion to ponder over the obligations cast upon Income Tax Authorities under the law. Often assessee and income tax authorities are at logger-heads for assessee not acting as “required” but before authorities allege the assessee for not doing his part of obligation,  a line has to be drawn from where assesse’s  part of obligations  commence, because it is easy to tell a person how best to carry his pack  until the burden is on one’s own back.

Facts of the case:

A survey was conducted on the assessee and stock of cotton was found in excess by 155.39 quintals. The stock was valued at Rs. 6,85,270/- after allowing 10% relief for non weighment by scale.

Plea of the assess:

Since the stock has not been weighed on the standardized scale , no addition for excess stock can be made.

Argument of the department and CIT A

It is obligation cast by law on the assessee to afford necessary facility for checking of stock and hence assessee has failed to provide weighment facility for checking of the stock of cotton. Had the survey team stubbornly refused to take inventory of stock by standardized scale provided by asseessee , only then the stand of the assessee had been tenable.

Judgement of the Court

Relevant Extract of Section 133A

As per Section 133A (1) “ ……an income authority may enter any place……at which a business or profession is carried on, ……………………………, and require any proprietor, employee or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to, or helping in, the carrying on of such business or profession……………….to afford him the necessary facility to check or verify the cash, stock or other valuable article or thing which may be found therein

As per Section 133(6)” If a person under this section is required to afford facility to the income-tax authority to inspect books of account or other documents or to check or verify any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing or to furnish any information or to have his statement recorded either refuses or evades to do so, the income-tax authority shall have all the powers under sub-section (1) of section 131 for enforcing compliance with the requirement made

Weighment has to be done as per Standards of Weighment and Measurement Act

The ITAT in para 6 of its Judgement has mentioned that it is not in dispute that weighment has to be done in accordance with provisions of Standards of Weights and Measurement Act 1976 (Now Legal Metrology Act 2009). As per section 3 of the said Act, its provisions override the provisions of any other law.

What is Mandate of section 133A

The Hon’ble Court also noted that provisions of section 133A are marked times and again by words “require” , “is required”. Thus the mandate of section 133A is that it is the surveying authority who is to “require” the person attending the business to afford necessary facility to check or verify the stock. It is only on such requirement having been expressed by the surveying authority that the said authority shall essentially be afforded such facility for checking or verification of the stock found in the survey. Hence it was obligatory on surveying authority to “require” assessee to make available standardized scales for weighment . The assessee is not obliged to provide what he is not “required”

Section 133A is based on principles of Natural Justice

The Hon’ble bench of ITAT Amritsar also elaborated that use of word “require” in the section is clearly based on natural justice principle that nobody , muchless a person as referred to in the section can be presumed to know the law. Rather, in such a situation like one at hand, the person needs must be aware, by statutory authority i.e. Income tax authority, that the stock found in the survey is to be weighed as per provisions of Standards of Weights and Measurement Act 1976 for which necessary facility is to be provided by the person to the authority.

The Bench also held that it is also trite that Income tax authority must help the assessee.  The authority can not withhold such legal requirement from the assessee prejudicially and then on the contrary hold the assesssee liable for not making good such legal requirement.

This it is amply clear that it is “first” for the surveying authority to “require” the person attending the premises to afford the necessary facility.

 

Conclusion:  A closed mouthed frog can not catch any flies. Hence the income tax authorities must “first “ require assessee to provide standardized scales under the law before they aspire or expect the assesee to provide necessary facility to check or verify stock. The Judgement also casts duty on the knowledgeable one to enlighten the ignorant ones. In this case survey team abstained from requiring and educating the assessee about need to provide standard weighment scales inspite of express provisions of Standards of Weights and Measuresment Act, 1976.  And the Judgment propounds that law can forgive a child who is afraid of dark but not the men afraid of light.

Posted on

Loss from assigning the amount recoverable from Indian entity is short term capital loss which can be set off against capital gain Income of the assessee non resident company

Amount recoverable from wholly owned Indian subsidiary was assigned to another company by non resident company assessee for loss. Held by ITAT Mumbai that even though an advance, a debt or a recoverable amount is a ‘current asset’ from an accountant’s perspective, as long as such an advance, debt or recoverable amount satisfies the requirements of Section 2(14), it will have to be treated as a ‘capital asset’ for the purposes of computation of capital gain. The concept of ‘current asset’ is alien to the law on taxation of capital gains, or, for that purpose, to the law on taxation of income. Further as per Section 9(1)(i) any income, “through the capital asset situated in India” is deemed to accrue or arise in India, the debt being recoverable from company in India is a capital assets in India. As a corollary to this taxability of income, the loss through the capital asset situated in India is also required to be taken into account. Also the transaction satisfies the definition of term “transfer” u/s 2(47) as it is sale of debt. The sale of trade debts, or even loans, is a part of day to day trade and commerce. Hence loss from assigning the amount recoverable from Indian entity is short term capital loss which can be set off against capital gain Income of the assessee non resident company

Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme GmbH [2016] 68 taxmann.com 113 (Mumbai – Trib.)MARCH  31, 2016

Posted on

Hotel providing accomodation on daily basis is assessable under Business Income and not Income from House property merely because tds is deducted u/s 194-I

TDS of the assessee is deducted u/s 194-I for providing accommodation on daily basis. However assessee’s memorandum of association indicates that main object of the company is to carry on the business of hotels, resorts, boarding, lodges, guest houses, etc. However no property was let out and assessee received only rentals for occupation of the premises on a daily basis. Assessing Officer’s contention that income has to be assessed under ‘house property’ because TDS is deducted u/s 194-I is not correct because Even if machinery was leased, the consequent rent comes under the definition of rent u/s 194-I. But machinery lease cannot be considered under ‘income from house property’. That indicates that just because TDS was made under section 194-I, it cannot be treated as ‘house property income’ as the rent definition includes lease of equipment, lease of furniture, fittings which cannot be considered as ‘house property Moreover, even if assessee has let out property but when the memorandum of association permits the business of letting out of properties as such, the income cannot be brought to tax as ‘income from house property’ as held in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. 373 ITR 673. It was held by Supreme Court that where in terms of Memorandum of Association, main object of the assessee-company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out the same, the said income is to be brought to tax as ‘income’ from business and not as ‘income from house property’ ITAT Hyderabad in Heritage Hospitality Limited [2016] 68 taxmann.com 150 (Hyderabad – Trib.) JANUARY 22, 2016

Posted on

Reduction in the Loans and Advances or Debtors on the asset side of it’s Balance Sheet to the extent of the provision for bad debt would be sufficient to constitute a write off: Held by SC in Vijaya Bank

Whether it is imperative for the assessee-Bank to close the individual account of each of it’s debtors in it’s books or a mere reduction in the Loans and Advances or Debtors on the asset side of it’s Balance Sheet to the extent of the provision for bad debt would be sufficient to constitute a write off

SC in the case of Vijya Bank vs. CIT 323 ITR 168 has held that

What is being insisted upon by the Assessing Officer is that mere reduction of the amount of loans and advances or the debtors at the year-end would not suffice and, in the interest of transparency, it would be desirable for the assessee-Bank to close each and every individual account of loans and advances or debtors as a pre-condition for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act……..because the Assessing Officer apprehended that the assessee-Bank might be taking the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act, twice over.

In this context, it may be noted that there is no finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had unauthorisedly claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), twice over. The Order of the Assessing Officer is based on an apprehension that, if the assessee fails to close each and every individual account of it’s debtor, it may result in assessee claiming deduction twice over. In this case, we are concerned with the interpretation of Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act. We cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehensions/desirability. It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor’s account if the Assessing Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that assessee has claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken in subsequent years.

There is also a flipside to the argument of the Department. Assessee has instituted recovery suits in Courts against it’s debtors. If individual accounts are to be closed, then the Debtor/Defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed.

Further Held by Supreme Court that if amount is recovered subsequently and it is more than difference between debt and amount so allowed , the balance can be taxed u/s 41(4).

Posted on

How to Write off a debt as per provisions of Section 36(1)(vii)

Held by Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Ltd. [320 ITR 577]

If an assessee debits an amount of doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and credits the asset account like sundry debtor’s account, it would constitute a write off of an actual debt.

However, if an assessee debits `provision for doubtful debt’ to the profit and loss account and makes a corresponding credit to the `current liabilities and provisions’ on the liabilities side of the balance-sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt. In the latter case, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction

Held by Supreme Court in Vijya Bank 323 ITR 168 

upholding the order of Tribunal and reversing the decision of High Court that besides debiting the Profit and Loss Account and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debt, the assessee-Bank had correspondingly/simultaneously obliterated the said provision from it’s accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from Loans and Advances/debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet and, consequently, at the end of the year, the figure in the loans and advances or the debtors on the asset side of the Balance Sheet was shown as net of the provision “for impugned bad debt”.

 

In the circumstances, we hold, on the first question, that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act as there was an actual write off by the assessee in it’s Books, as indicated above

Posted on

Where assessee has not concealed any material fact or any factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), even if claim made by him is unsustainable in law

Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 191 Taxman 179 (Del.). The Delhi High Court has held as under:- “It was held that so long as assessee has not concealed any material fact or any factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), even if claim made by him is unsustainable in law, provided that he either substantiate explanation offered by him or explanation, even if not substantiated, is found to be bona fide.

Posted on

Taxability of Damages for breach of contract received by the buyer of Immovable property discussed by ITAT Amritsar

The law under section 51 and 56(2)(ix) provides for the taxability of forfeiture of advance money received in the hands of seller. Till AY 2014-15, the forfeited sum was deductible from the cost and even the excess of forfeited money over cost was capital receipt not taxable by virtue of Supreme Court Judgment in Travoncore Rubbers. In the hands of buyer the forfeiture of amount by reason of failure on the part of buyer was not treated as capital loss by virtue of Bombay High Court Judgement in Sterling Investment Corporation 123 ITR 441. However wef AY 2015-16, the forfeited amount is taxable in the hands of seller as Income from other Sources and no reduction from cost of the asset has to be made.

 

However Income tax law is silent about the treatment of compensation received by the buyer of immovable property for breach of contract by the seller. ITAT Amritsar has in a recent decision in Rajesh Mayor ITA 571/ASR/2014 pronounced on 04-05-2016 has revisited the law on the subject:

Facts of the case: The assessee entered into agreement with proposed seller for the purchase of a house for 4.04crores. Biana of 50 lacs was paid by the buyer. The seller however backed out of the agreement. The buyer filed a suit in civil court. The Court ordered return of biana of 50 lacs to buyer and also ordered to pay 54 lacs as compensation to the buyer. By way of two cheques of 27 lacs each. While payment against one of cheques was honored, other cheque got bounced and the buyer could recover the amount only by filing suit u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The AO assessed the receipt of 54 lacs as capital gains. CIT A dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

The development of the law on the subject may be discussed as under:

  1. Tata Services Limited  [1979] 1 Taxman 427 (Bom.): It was held by Bombay High Court that:

“………..Under an agreement to purchase a plot of land, assessee paid Rs. 90,000 as earnest money. Vendor failed to obtain requisite permission within stipulated time. Assessee, however, obtained permission and parties agreed to register the plot on a specified date. Parties thereafter came to an arrangement under which assessee received the earnest money of Rs. five lakhs and assigned right, title and interest under the agreement to third party. Held that assessee owned a capital asset under the agreement and Rs. five lakhs was liable for capital gains tax…..”

  1. Delhi High Court in J. Dalmia (1984)149 ITR 215 : It was held by Delhi High Court :

“9.…………………..There was a breach of contract and the assessee received damages in satisfaction thereof. He had a mere right to sue for damages. Assuming the same to be ‘property’ this could not be transferred under s. 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The relevant provision may be reproduced:

“6. Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force:…..

(e) A mere right to sue cannot be transferred.”

We do not find any exception under the IT Act though the word ‘transfer’ in relation to capital asset has been defined in s. 2(47) of the Act which includes ‘sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any right therein’. The damages which were received by the assessee cannot be said to be on account of relinquishment of any of his assets or on account of extinguishment of his right of specific performance under the contract for sale.

  1. Under s. 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, ‘transfer of property’ means an act by which a person conveys property to another and ‘to transfer property’ is to perform such act. A mere right to sue may or may not be property but it certainly cannot be transferred. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that in order that a receipt or accrual of income may attract the charge of tax on capital gains the sine qua non is that the receipt or accrual must have originated in a ‘transfer’ within the meaning of s. 45 r/w s. 2(47) of the Act. Since there could not be any transfer in the instant case, it has to be held that the amount of Rs. 1,02,500 received by the assessee as damages was not assessable as capital gains.”

In above case, the decision of Tata teleservices(supra) was distinguished on the facts that the right to specific performance had been specifically given up by the assessee J. Dalmia and what was left was a mere right to sue for damages. While in Tata Teleservices, the buyer had assigned his rights to purchase the property to third party.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of the department against the Delhi High Court decision in J.Dalmia(supra) in 189 ITR 22(ST.)

  1. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom) & Laxmi Devi Rattani (296 ITR 363)(MP)

In this case the buyer was constrained to file suit for specific performance/ damages for breach due to seller’s failure to comply agreement. Consent terms were arrived at in the suit and a decree was passed in favour of the assessee for the sum of Rs. 1,17,500 and interest.Dissenting J. Dalmia (supra) held by Mumbai High Court that :

“………..Having regard to the statutory provisions and the authorities which we have cited above, we cannot, with respect, agree that the right acquired under an agreement to purchase immovable property is a mere right to sue. The assessee acquired under the said agreement for sale the right to have the immovable property conveyed to him. He was, under the law, entitled to exercise that right not only against his vendors but also against a transferee with notice or a gratuitous transferee. He could assign that right. What he acquired under the said agreement for sale was, therefore, property within the meaning of the IT Act and, consequently, a capital asset. When he filed the suit in this Court against the vendors he claimed specific performance of the said agreement for sale by conveyance to him of the immovable property and, only in the alternative, damages for breach of the agreement. A settlement was arrived at when the suit reached hearing, at which point of time the assessee gave up his right to claim specific performance and took only damages. His giving up of the right to claim specific performance by conveyance to him immovable property was a relinquishment of the capital asset. There was, therefore, a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of the IT Act………….”

In Laxmi Devi Ratani, facts were found similar to Vijay Flexible Containers(supra) and hence decision was given accordingly.

  1. K.R. Sri Nath  (Madras) 268 ITR 436:

Held that

“……………10. As seen already, the assessee had a right to insist on specific performance, gave up the right readily and received a sum referred to supra. There can be no doubt that by termination of the earlier agreement and by allowing the vendor to sell the said property to any person at any price, the assessee had given up or relinquished his right of specific performance and as consideration for relinquishing that right, the assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000. The right, title and interest acquired under the agreement of sale clearly fall within the definition of capital asset [s. 2(14)]. Instead of assigning the right to third party/parties, the assessee relinquished those rights. We have already seen that the definition of transfer in s. 2(47) is wide enough to include relinquishment of an asset.

  1. With regard to the contention that there was no cost of acquisition incurred by the assessee for obtaining the rights under the agreement dt. 3rd April, 1986, and consequently there could be no capital gains assessable, it is to be noted that at the time of agreement of sale the assessee paid Rs. 40,000. That payment was made pursuant to the agreement. Only by paying the said amount the assessee acquired the right to get the sale deed executed in his favour. At this juncture, we may refer to the observation in the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. (supra), where it is observed as under :

“The assessee had paid at the time of the execution of the agreement of sale Rs. 90,000. He had then acquired a right to obtain a sale deed. When he gave up that right or assigned it in favour of M/s Advani and Batra, he received Rs. 5,90,000 and Rs. 90,000 was treated as refund of consideration. Therefore, actual cost to the assessee of the right to obtain the sale deed on the date of the agreement of sale was Rs. 90,000.”

Even in the other case referred to in CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers(supra), the Bombay High Court held that the capital asset had been acquired at a cost of Rs. 17,500 paid as and by way of earnest money. In that case also the Court observed as follows :

“We may, at this stage, also deal with the further argument that there was no consideration for the acquisition of the capital asset. In our view, this Court was right in the view that it took that the payment of earnest money under the agreement for sale was the cost of acquisition of the capital asset.”

  1. Now that we have come to the conclusion that the assessee incurred Rs. 40,000 for acquiring the right to acquire the sale deed, the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that there is no cost of acquisition and so there could be no assessment of capital gain on the transfer of the capital asset falls to the ground.
  2. It has been held by Supreme Court in Saurashtra Cement Ltd 325 ITR 422 that compensation received for delay in procurement of capital asset is capital receipt not chargeable tax.
  1. Mumbai High Court in Kumarpal MohanLal Jain 41 Taxmann.com 55 held that compensation of Rs. 15000/- awarded for failure of builder to hand over possession to the buyer is tax exempt.

Two Views Theory :It has been held by Supreme Court in  :

  1. a) CIT v. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) –

Where there are two possible interpretations of a particular section which is akin to a charging section, the interpretation which is favourable to the assessee should be preferred while construing that particular provision. Reiterating the same view, in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 308 (SC) it has been held that in interpreting a fiscal statute, the Court cannot proceed to make good the deficiencies if there be any. The Court must interpret the statute as it stands and in case of doubt, in a manner favorable to the taxpayer.

(b)        CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd [1973] 88 ITR 192 –

It has been held that if the Court finds that the language of taxing provision is ambiguous or capable of more meaning than one, then the Court has to adopt the interpretation which favours the assessee.

ITAT Amritsar after consideration of the law on the subject

held that compensation received by the buyer of property for breach of agreement is not taxable in the hands of buyer.

 

Conclusion: The dispute on the issue in centered around the issue whether breach of contract by seller gives buyer a right to sue or something more. The issue whether giving up of right of specific performance in lieu of compensation for breach in itself constitutes transfer under section 2(47). Till the legislature comes out with some solution, following a view favorable to the assesee seems to be the only rational solution.

Posted on

Non consideration of certain arguments before SC does not make its judgement lesser binding

The binding effect of a decision of Supreme Court does not depend upon whether. a particular argument was considered therein or not, provided that the point with reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced was actually decided.

Smt. Somavanti v. State of Punjab [1963] 2 SCR 774 and T. Govindraja Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu [1973] 3 SCR 222.