9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of interest amount as revenue or capital receipt under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law to the High Court regarding the treatment of interest amounts in a dispute arising from a contract. The dispute arose from a contract between the assessee, a contractor, and the M. E. S. Department, Firozepur, Punjab, which was referred to an arbitrator for adjudication. The arbitrator awarded interest on various heads, including an amount of Rs. 7,59,748. The Tribunal classified this interest amount as a capital receipt, considering it an ex gratia award by the arbitrator, not under any statute or contract. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in T. N. K. Govindaraju Chetty v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 465, to support its decision that the interest earned was not taxable. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejected an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, stating that the question was self-evident and covered by existing Supreme Court decisions, hence did not require reference. However, with reference to subsequent Supreme Court judgments, including Santokh Singh Arora v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1809, and Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Orissa v. G. C. Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732, it was established that arbitrators have the power to award interest pendente lite in cases where the agreement does not prohibit it, contradicting the notion that the award was ex gratia. The legal arguments presented by the counsel for the Revenue and the assessee focused on precedents such as Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. P. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 167, CIT v. Govinda Choudbury and Sons [1993] 203 ITR 881, and State of Orissa v. Niranjan Swain, AIR 1990 SC 685, among others. The Revenue's counsel contended that interest on compensation should be treated as a revenue receipt, while the assessee's counsel argued that the interest awarded by the arbitrator was ex gratia and not competent, citing Patnaik and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 365. The Tribunal's specific finding that the interest amount was awarded ex gratia and not challenged was a key point in the arguments presented. The High Court found merit in the Revenue's submission that the question framed required adjudication on whether the interest amount was rightly classified as a capital receipt by the Tribunal, which in itself was a question of law. The court directed the Tribunal to draw up a statement of facts and refer the specific question of law regarding the treatment of the Rs. 7,59,748 interest amount as a capital receipt, excluding the already taxed interest of Rs. 11,812.50. This decision clarified the legal status of the interest amount under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the distinction between revenue and capital receipts in such cases.
|
