1981 (1) TMI 239 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of excess collection made from customers on account of Central sales tax.

Detailed Analysis:

The case involved a question referred to the Calcutta High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 76,103, representing the excess collection made from customers on account of Central sales tax, should be considered as taxable income under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a resident company for the assessment year 1968-69, had transferred this sum from the Central sales tax account to an unclaimed deposit account for the financial year ending on 31st March, 1968. The Income-tax Officer initially added back this amount in the computation of the total income, considering it as part of trading receipts no longer payable due to excess collection. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner overturned this decision, stating that the amount was refundable and not yet final, thereby upholding the contention of the assessee.

Subsequently, the revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which rejected the revenue's argument and held that the amount in question could not be treated as trading receipts. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in various cases, including Chowringhee Sales Bureau Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Sinclair Murray and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta. These cases established that amounts collected, even if not paid to the government, constituted trading receipts and had to be included in the total income of the assessee. The Calcutta High Court and the Gujarat High Court also followed similar principles in their respective decisions. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding that the amount in question did not represent the assessee's taxable income based on the established legal precedents.

In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in the negative and in favor of the revenue, indicating that the amount in question should be considered as taxable income. The judgment was delivered by Justices Sabyasachi Mukharji and Sudhindra Mohan Guha, with Justice Sudhindra Mohan Guha concurring with Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji's decision.