2012 (4) TMI 614 - AT - Income Tax

Grant-in-aid - nature of income - Held that - The use of the word include in section 2(24), the word income shall be construed as comprehending not only those items which said section declares that these shall include but also such items as it signifies according to its natural import. Since section 2(24) has not declared that such a grant-in-aid shall be included in the income, the word revenue shall be construed as comprehending what it signifies according to its natural import. In relation to a business undertaking, the word revenue connotes incomings of the undertaking which are products of the normal working of the undertaking. The giving of financial aid or subsidy to the aforesaid committee, which admittedly is not carrying on any business, is at the discretion of the Government or Sugar factories. Thus, the grant-in-aid in question was not a product of the normal business activities of the assessee committee, assessed by the AO as a local authority. Therefore, such a grant-in-aid could not be termed as a revenue receipt so as to form part of the total income. As already pointed out, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the aforesaid funds received by the assessee from State Government and sugar factories have been spent only for those specific projects and there was no surplus with the assessee.

Issues:
1. Whether funds received for a specific project can be treated as part of total receipts even if not utilized for that project.
2. Whether generation of surplus without distribution amounts to profit.
3. Whether funds received and spent for a specific project can be considered as taxable income.
4. Whether the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and that of the AO restored.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Revenue contended that funds received for road construction should be considered as part of total receipts even if not utilized for that purpose. The CIT(A) held that such funds can be treated as not forming part of total receipts if they were received for a specific project and were spent on that project. The CIT(A) emphasized that the funds were given for road construction and were indeed spent on those specific projects, resulting in no surplus income. The CIT(A) concluded that there was no taxable income arising from these funds.

Issue 2:
The Revenue argued that the mere generation of surplus without distribution should be considered as profit. However, the CIT(A) disagreed, stating that as long as the surplus is ploughed back for designated activities, it does not amount to profit. The CIT(A) highlighted that no surplus was generated during the relevant year, and the funds were spent on the designated project of road construction, leading to no taxable income.

Issue 3:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s observation that funds received and spent for a specific project should not be considered as taxable income. The CIT(A) explained that the funds were utilized for the designated road construction project and no surplus existed with the assessee. The CIT(A) found detailed evidence supporting the expenditure on the specific project, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the AO.

Issue 4:
The Revenue sought to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore that of the AO. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal emphasized that the grant-in-aid received for the specific purpose of road construction was not a revenue receipt and did not form part of the total income. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-supported conclusions and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the funds received and spent for the specific project of road construction did not result in taxable income due to the absence of surplus and the nature of the grant-in-aid received.

← Previous Next →