1989 (9) TMI 37 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting Rs. 53,119 and Rs. 80,942 from the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, respectively, on the ground that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not attracted.

Summary:

Issue 1: Justification of Tribunal's Deletion of Amounts from Total Income

The assessee, a director of Messrs. Oberoi Hotels (I.) Pvt. Ltd., maintained a running account with the company and overdrew significant amounts during the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) observed that no interest was charged on these overdrawn amounts and invoked section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calculating the value of the benefit as interest at 12% per annum, which was taxed under "Other sources."

The assessee appealed, arguing that the company allowed overdrawing from its own funds and had a long-standing practice of not charging interest, as per a resolution dated May 27, 1968. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the ITO's decision. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee and the company had a mutual agreement not to charge interest and deleted the additions made by the ITO.

At the High Court hearing, the assessee's counsel highlighted the Tribunal's findings and the legislative amendments to section 17(2) and section 40A by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, and their subsequent deletion by the Finance Act, 1985. These amendments and deletions indicated that interest-free loans or loans at concessional rates were not intended to be treated as "benefit or perquisite" under section 2(24)(iv).

The High Court considered the rival contentions and concluded that the non-charging of interest on the overdrawn amounts did not constitute a benefit or perquisite under section 2(24)(iv). The Court noted that the legislative amendments and their subsequent deletion demonstrated Parliament's intention not to treat interest-free loans as taxable benefits. The Tribunal's findings that there was no evidence of the company borrowing funds to advance to the assessee or paying interest on the overdrawn amounts further supported this conclusion.

Therefore, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that section 2(24)(iv) could not be applied in this case. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.