2014 (11) TMI 730 - HC - Income Tax

Taxability of cash incentive and duty draw back - Whether the amount on account of cash incentive and duty draw back, though claimed but not received actually by the assessee, would be taxable under the Income Tax Act Held that - As decided in Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Versus Sriyansh Knitters (P.) Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 638 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT It has been decided that before quantification based on verification, no income could be held to have accrued to the assessee - no income accrued till claim of the assessee was quantified and verified - assessee submits that the cash incentive and duty draw back, for AY 1983-84, was eventually adjusted in AY 1986-87 Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of cash incentive and duty draw back not received by the assessee under the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of whether the amount on account of cash incentive and duty draw back, even if claimed but not actually received by the assessee, would be taxable under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision in ITC No.184 of 1994 was considered, where it was held that no income could be deemed to have accrued to the assessee before quantification based on verification. The Tribunal concluded that no income accrued until the claim of the assessee was quantified and verified. Consequently, the Court declined the prayer for a reference in this regard. Subsequently, a similar question was considered in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manav Tolls (India) P. Ltd, where the judgment was against the revenue. The Court found that the revenue failed to distinguish the judgments or present any argument to alter the opinion. Therefore, the Court answered the question of law in line with the previous orders and opinions.

Moreover, the counsel for the assessee mentioned that the cash incentive and duty draw back for the assessment year 1983-84 were eventually adjusted in the assessment year 1986-87, as per the order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana. To support this claim, an affidavit was filed in the Court by the appellant, which was accepted as evidence. Given that the question of law had already been settled against the revenue based on prior judgments, the reference was answered against the revenue accordingly. The case was disposed of based on the established legal precedents and factual submissions presented during the proceedings.