2015 (9) TMI 1631 - HC - Income Tax

Repayment of loan by trust - to be treated as application of income as disallowed because the loan was never taken as income at the time of receipt - Held that - The question that the Revenue seeks to urge in this appeal, and on which notice was issued by this Court on 10th July, 2015 did not arise for consideration before the AO. Since such contention was not raised by the Revenue before the AO, the Respondent Assessee had no occasion to be heard on such issue at the appropriate stage. The Court, therefore, cannot permit the Revenue to urge the said issue at this stage. Moreover, the Respondent Assessee is stated to have a deficit of ₹ 33,67,78,348 for the AY in question and, therefore, there is no tax effect for the said AY. What is sought to be projected by the Revenue is only a notional tax effect. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of claim for repayment of loan as application of income.
2. Revenue seeking to urge a question not raised before the Assessing Officer.
3. Notional tax effect projection by the Revenue.
4. Dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of disallowance of the claim for the repayment of a loan as an application of income. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim on the grounds that the loan was not treated as income at the time of receipt. The Respondent Assessee argued that since the Revenue did not raise this contention before the AO, they were not given an opportunity to address it. The Court agreed with the Respondent Assessee, stating that the Revenue cannot raise new issues at a later stage when they were not raised before the AO.

2. The second issue pertains to the Revenue seeking to urge a question that was not raised before the Assessing Officer. The Court highlighted that since the Revenue did not raise this question before the AO, the Respondent Assessee was not given a chance to respond to it at the appropriate stage. Therefore, the Court did not permit the Revenue to raise the issue at a later stage, emphasizing the importance of raising all relevant issues during the assessment process.

3. The third issue involves the projection of a notional tax effect by the Revenue. The Respondent Assessee was reported to have a deficit for the Assessment Year in question, resulting in no actual tax effect. The Revenue's attempt to project a notional tax effect was dismissed by the Court, emphasizing the need for a genuine tax impact rather than a hypothetical or notional one.

4. Finally, the judgment concludes with the dismissal of the appeal. The Court, considering the arguments presented and the issues raised, decided to dismiss the appeal in favor of the Respondent Assessee. This decision signifies the Court's stance on the issues discussed and the reasons provided in the judgment.

Overall, the judgment delves into various aspects of the case, including the disallowance of the claim, procedural fairness in raising issues, the significance of actual tax effects, and the final decision to dismiss the appeal based on the arguments and considerations presented during the proceedings.