2012 (4) TMI 90 - HC - Income Tax

Capital gain - the assessee had filed its return of income and had, amongst others, offered an income of Rs.11,15,44,005 as capital gains - in the instant case, that the return was filed by the assessee and the assessee disclosed a capital gain amount of Rs. 11,15,44,005 - A footnote if at all can be for the pur- pose of amplification or for further reference or any such thing, but not to indicate a stand contrary to the main thing - a footnote cannot guide or control a return which is filed by an assessee. A footnote if at all can be for the pur- pose of amplification or for further reference or any such thing, but not to indicate a stand contrary to the main thing - Held that the instant case was not one of a principle of estoppel being put against the assessee to deny any examination but it was a more a case of non-production of relevant material by the assessee which would have compelled the Tribunal or the Appellate Commissioner to examine and opine on that and merely raising a ground is not a substitute for material to make good the ground - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of income as capital gains
2. Justification of assessing authority's decision
3. Validity of Tribunal's decision

Interpretation of income as capital gains:
The case involved an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by a public limited company regarding the treatment of income as capital gains. The company had declared an income of Rs. 11,15,44,005 as capital gains in its return. The assessing authority added back certain sums under different heads, resulting in a taxable income of Rs. 5,02,09,941. The company contended that only a portion of the declared amount should be taxable as capital gains, as the rest was transferred to a capital reserve account. However, both the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the company voluntarily declared the amount as capital gains, and the assessing authority had accepted the return. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Justification of assessing authority's decision:
The company argued that the entire amount declared as capital gains should not be taxed as income, as a part of it was transferred to a capital reserve account. The company's counsel contended that the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal erred in not examining this aspect. The counsel also challenged the Tribunal's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment, stating that it favored the assessee. Referring to a Division Bench judgment, the counsel argued that there should be no estoppel against the assessee if certain deductions or exemptions were wrongly omitted. The High Court noted that the return was a statutory requirement, and the company's disclosure of capital gains was expected to be accurate. The Court emphasized that a footnote in the return could not alter the main disclosure. It held that the company failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that the entire amount should not be treated as capital gains, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Validity of Tribunal's decision:
The High Court found that the Tribunal did not err in rejecting the company's arguments. It clarified that the case was not about estoppel but the lack of supporting material from the company to justify its claim. The Court emphasized that raising a ground without substantial evidence was insufficient. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal. The Court answered the posed questions in favor of the assessing authority, concluding that the appeal lacked merit.

---