9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 37 - HC - Income TaxAssessee borrowed money through redeemable debentures redemption of redeemable debentures, issued in 1988 was due in 1995 - certain repayments were not claimed by the public by way of redemption and an amount of Rs.49.06 lakhs remained unpaid without being claimed by the Debenture holders till the AY 1999-2000 assessee transferred amount of unclaimed debentures to the General Reserve Account and utilized in its business - sum of Rs.49.06 lakhs was taxable as income of the Appellant
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.49.06 lakhs, which remained unpaid and unclaimed by the debenture holders till the assessment year 1999-2000, was the income of the appellant for the assessment year 1999-2000 based solely on the entry in the appellant's books made in 1998. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the redemption of redeemable debentures issued in 1988, which was due in 1995, became the income of the appellant despite the proviso to Section 205C of the Companies Act, which states that the liability of the assessee has not ceased. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Treatment of Unclaimed Debentures as Income The appellant-assessee borrowed money through 14% redeemable debentures due for redemption in 1995. By the assessment year 1999-2000, Rs.49.06 lakhs remained unclaimed and was transferred to the General Reserve Account. The Assessing Officer (AO) deemed this amount as the assessee's own money and treated it as trade receipts, bringing it to tax. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to deposit the unclaimed amount into the Investor Education and Protection Fund and utilized the money for its business. The Tribunal found that the liability had effectively ceased, and the unclaimed amount was rightly considered as income. The appellant argued that mere unilateral entry in the books of account does not extinguish the liability, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd., which held that the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the debt but only prevents its enforcement. However, the Tribunal found that since the amount was utilized for business purposes and not transferred to the Investor Education and Protection Fund, it should be treated as income. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 205C of the Companies Act The appellant contended that under Section 205C of the Companies Act, the unclaimed amount should not be treated as income until it remains unclaimed for seven years. The Tribunal, however, observed that the amount had been lying with the assessee since 1995 and was utilized for business purposes, thus constituting a trade receipt. Section 205C mandates the transfer of unclaimed amounts to the Investor Education and Protection Fund after seven years. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with this requirement and continued to use the funds for its business. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the amount should be treated as income. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was based on the factual finding that the unclaimed amount was utilized for business purposes and not transferred to the Investor Education and Protection Fund. The Tribunal held that the amount should be treated as income, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., which supports treating unclaimed amounts as income when they become the assessee's own money. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision and finding no substantial question of law. The Court emphasized that the amount was utilized by the assessee for its business and transferred to the Reserve Fund Account, thus justifying its treatment as income. The Court also noted that the Tribunal provided for adjustments in subsequent assessment years if amounts were repaid to debenture holders. Final Judgment: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision to treat the unclaimed debenture amount as income was upheld. No order as to costs was made.
|
