9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (3) TMI 83 - HC - Income TaxWhether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,04,000 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed and enhanced by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to Rs. 2,69,685 on account of interests from the Hindu undivided family debtor on accrual basis? - Assessing Officer had held that the income had accrued and, therefore, had directed the addition of Rs. 2,04,000. In the present case, in our view, the income cannot be treated to have accrued as was rightly found by the learned Tribunal. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,04,000 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed and enhanced by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to Rs. 2,69,685 on account of interests from the Hindu undivided family debtor on an accrual basis. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Tribunal's Deletion of Addition: The primary issue revolves around whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,04,000 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed and enhanced by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to Rs. 2,69,685 on account of interests from the Hindu undivided family debtor on an accrual basis. The Assessing Officer had held that the income had accrued and, therefore, directed the addition of Rs. 2,04,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this order and enhanced the addition to Rs. 2,69,685. However, the Tribunal deleted this addition. The relevant assessment year was 1988-89, relating to the accounting year 1986-87, ending in October 1987. The assessee had advanced a loan carrying interest at 12% per annum. Interest was paid initially, but after May 30, 1986, no interest was paid. The debtor requested waiving arrear interest after June 30, 1986, which was accepted by the assessee on August 1, 1987, provided the debtor repaid the principal and interest up to June 30, 1986, in instalments starting January 1988. The debtor paid three instalments but defaulted thereafter. The Tribunal observed that the debtor denied liability for both principal and interest, and a suit was filed by the assessee, which was pending at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Concept of Real Income: The Revenue argued that under the mercantile system of accounting, it is the accrual of income, not the actual receipt, that matters. They cited various judgments, including State Bank of Travancore v. CIT, to support their contention that subsequent waiver does not negate the accrual of income. The assessee contended that the concept of real income should apply, meaning that unless there is actual income, it cannot be taxed. They argued that the decision to waive interest and the omission to enter the accrual in the accounts showed that the income did not accrue in reality. Judicial Precedents and Principles: The court referred to several precedents, including CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., which held that if income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even if an entry is made in the books. The court also discussed the principles laid down in State Bank of Travancore's case, emphasizing that the accrual of income must be real, taking into account the actuality of the situation. Application to the Present Case: The court found that the decision to waive interest was taken on August 1, 1987, and was applicable for the previous year beginning from July 1, 1986. The assessee omitted to enter the accrual of interest in the books of account, indicating that they treated the income as not having accrued. The subsequent revival of the right to recover interest did not mean that the income had accrued in reality for that particular year. Conclusion: The court concluded that the income could not be treated to have accrued as rightly found by the Tribunal. The question was answered in the affirmative in favor of the assessee, indicating that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition.
|
