2001 (12) TMI 54 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the forfeited security deposit of Rs. 3,66,000 by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was a business loss deductible in computing the assessee's income for the assessment year 1975-76.
2. Whether the provision of Rs. 2,42,000 for registration charges of plots by the assessee in its accounts was chargeable as accrued liabilities against this income.
3. Whether the assessee-company could be treated as an industrial company for the purpose of the rate of tax.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Forfeited Security Deposit as Business Loss
The assessee participated in an auction held by the DDA and made bids for certain plots, paying earnest money. Subsequently, the assessee retracted its bids, leading to the forfeiture of Rs. 3,66,000 by the DDA. The assessee claimed this forfeiture as a business loss. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) disallowed this claim on several grounds, including that the plots were intended to be retained as capital stock and not for resale, and that the loss should have been claimed in the assessment year 1974-75. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) disagreed, stating that the assessee's business involved the construction and sale of commercial flats, and the forfeiture occurred due to a breach of contract in the course of business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the High Court noted that the forfeiture was under litigation and the assessee had not suffered any actual loss as the amount was decreed in its favor. Therefore, the High Court ruled that the purported loss could not be considered a business loss and should be claimed if the appeal is allowed in the relevant year.

Issue 2: Provision for Registration Charges as Accrued Liabilities
The assessee claimed Rs. 2,42,000 as a provision for registration charges for plots. The ITO disallowed this, stating that the liability was contingent and not accrued, and that the registration charges were to be borne by the body of buyers as per the agreement. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that a definite liability incurred in the accounting year should not be considered contingent. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the registration of documents is a contingent liability and not an accrued one. The charges were to be paid by the allottees, not the assessee, and thus, the provision could not be considered an allowable deduction.

Issue 3: Assessee-Company as an Industrial Company
The assessee claimed to be treated as an industrial company for tax purposes. The High Court referred to various judgments, including CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. and Minocha Bros P. Ltd. v. CIT, which established that construction activity does not qualify as an industrial activity. The court noted that the assessee failed to prove that its income from manufacturing or production activities constituted at least 51% of its total income. Therefore, the High Court ruled that the assessee could not be treated as an industrial company for the purpose of the rate of tax.

Conclusion:
All questions were answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference was accordingly disposed of.