2011 (8) TMI 412 - HC - Income Tax

Income for undisclosed sources - promissory note payable in the name of company or in the name of director - Held that - on the basis of such promissory note, the amount was not payable to the appellant but was payable to Shri Parikh who happens to be one of the Directors of the appellant. - Any promissory note promising to pay an amount to a Director of the company cannot be deemed to be an amount payable to the company and thus, the authorities below acted illegally in treating the amount payable under that promissory note to be an amount receivable by the appellant, the Company.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of promissory note and its implications on tax assessment.
2. Consideration of development agreement in tax assessment.
3. Legal validity of treating amount payable to a director as income of the company.

Issue 1: Interpretation of promissory note and its implications on tax assessment:
The appellant, a private limited company, entered into a development agreement with a partnership firm for a real estate project. A promissory note was issued by the firm to pay a sum to one of the company's directors. The Assessing Officer treated this sum as undisclosed income for the block period, as it was not received by the company within the financial year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, but the Tribunal reversed the decision due to lack of produced agreement and unclear payment details in the promissory note. The High Court analyzed the promissory note, noting it was payable to the director, not the company, leading to a remand for further assessment based on explanations already provided.

Issue 2: Consideration of development agreement in tax assessment:
The appellant argued that the development agreement, though not produced before the Assessing Officer, was submitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal's decision to withdraw relief granted by the Commissioner based on this non-production was questioned. The High Court found that the agreement was crucial for understanding the context of the promissory note and remanded the case for reevaluation by the Assessing Officer with the agreement's consideration.

Issue 3: Legal validity of treating amount payable to a director as income of the company:
The High Court highlighted that a promissory note promising payment to a director cannot be considered as an amount payable to the company. Despite this, considering the development agreement referenced in the promissory note and the appellant's claim of it being a security, the Court remanded the matter for the Assessing Officer to reexamine the case based on the explanations provided earlier. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, answering the questions in favor of the appellant and against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the proper interpretation of the promissory note, the necessity of considering the development agreement, and the legal distinction between amounts payable to a director and the company. The case was remanded for a fresh assessment based on the provided explanations, ensuring a fair and thorough review of the tax assessment.