9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1481 - AT - Income TaxCessation of liability under section 41(1) - assessee company had failed to prove that the loan obtained from M/s Matrix Logistics Pvt Ltd was or the purpose of acquiring capital assets - HELD THAT - Whether the credit is routed through the profit and loss account or not is wholly irrelevant for determining the nature of receipt. As held by Hon ble Supreme Court s landmark judgment in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co Ltd Vs CIT 1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT the accounting entries cannot be determinative of the nature of receipt. In any case what can be added to income under section 41(1) is something in respect of which deduction has been allowed in past. It is an essential prerequisite for invoking section 41(1) that an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee and it is only when the assessee derives any benefit in respect of waiver of such liability that the provisions of Section 41(1) can be invoked. Unless therefore it is shown that the assessee has been allowed any deduction in past section 41(1) cannot be invoked. Similarly as regards the taxability under section 28(iv) it can only come into play only in case of benefits other than the receipt of cash or money. On both the counts the case of the Revenue fails Respectfully following the esteemed views of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd 2018 (5) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT we approve the line of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer was clearly in error in invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) on the facts of this case and the CIT(A) was perfectly justified in reversing the stand of the Assessing Officer.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Nature of the unsecured loan and its treatment in the profit and loss account. 4. Consistency in the treatment of similar transactions in previous assessment years. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The core issue was whether the cessation of liability amounting to ?4,42,95,650 due to the winding up of Matrix Logistics Pvt Ltd should be taxed under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that this cessation of liability should be taxed as it was credited to the profit and loss account, suggesting its revenue nature. However, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the ITAT found that for Section 41(1) to apply, the liability must have been allowed as a deduction in the past. Since no such deduction was allowed, Section 41(1) was deemed inapplicable. The ITAT cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CIT Vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, which clarified that waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability and is not taxable under Section 41(1) if no deduction was claimed in the past. 2. Applicability of Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The AO also contended that if Section 41(1) was not applicable, then Section 28(iv) should apply. Section 28(iv) deals with the value of any benefit or perquisite arising from business or profession, other than cash. The ITAT, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, stated that Section 28(iv) applies only to benefits in kind, not cash. Since the cessation of liability resulted in a cash receipt, Section 28(iv) was also deemed inapplicable. 3. Nature of the Unsecured Loan and Its Treatment in the Profit and Loss Account: The AO argued that the loan from Matrix Logistics was used for buying shares, indicating a revenue nature. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT found that the loan was utilized for acquiring capital assets, specifically investments in shares, which were consistently shown as long-term investments in the balance sheet. The ITAT emphasized that the accounting treatment of crediting the loan write-off to the profit and loss account does not determine its taxability. The nature of the receipt, whether capital or revenue, is what matters. 4. Consistency in Treatment of Similar Transactions in Previous Assessment Years: The CIT(A) noted that in the previous assessment year 2012-13, a similar write-off of ?6,64,43,474 was treated as a capital receipt and not taxed under Section 41(1) or Section 28(iv). The AO’s inconsistent treatment of the same nature of transaction in different years was highlighted as a flaw. The ITAT upheld this view, stating that the AO’s dual stand was unjustified. Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the AO erred in invoking Section 41(1) and Section 28(iv) for the cessation of liability amounting to ?4,42,95,650. The CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition was upheld. The ITAT emphasized that the cessation of liability did not amount to a revenue receipt and was not taxable under the cited sections. The appeal by the AO was dismissed. Final Judgment: The appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)’s order to delete the addition of ?4,42,95,650 was upheld. The judgment was pronounced on June 3, 2019.
|
