2006 (10) TMI 143 - HC - Income Tax

Dealer in vehicles amount received under post warranty service contract - credit balance in the post-warranty service scheme - plea of the assessee that the amount had not been transferred to the P/L A/c, did not make a difference on principle. If no liability accrued during the year, the amount could not be kept in suspense account. The same has to be treated as income - Considering the terms of the contract with the purchasers of the vehicle, any amount remaining credited in the account for more than three years from the date of credit has to be treated as income for the year thereafter and any refund claimed by any purchaser thereafter will be a permissible deduction during that relevant year

Issues:
Interpretation of tax liability on credit balance in post-warranty service scheme for assessment year 1978-79.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The case involved a dealer in Massey Ferguson Tractors who offered a "post-warranty service scheme" for customers. The scheme was voluntary and allowed customers to opt for services after the expiry of the warranty period. The scheme had two options - Scheme 'A' and Scheme 'B', with specific terms and conditions for services provided.

2. Accounting Treatment:
The dealer maintained separate accounts for the deposits received under the post-warranty service scheme. The dealer was obligated to provide services to the members who subscribed to the scheme. Any unclaimed balance at the end of the stipulated period was taken as profit. The dealer argued that the receipts under the scheme were not income but held in trust until the stipulated period expired.

3. Income Tax Assessment:
The Income-tax Officer added the entire balance in the scheme to the dealer's income, considering it as trading receipt. However, on appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the dealer. They held that the amounts received were not free from encumbrances and could be kept under a separate account.

4. Legal Interpretation:
The court referred to Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, which deems amounts representing trading liability as profits if there is a surplus during the year. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that even if an amount is not initially taxable, it can later be treated as income when it becomes the assessee's money by law or contract.

5. Judicial Precedents:
The court referred to cases where amounts initially not treated as income were later considered taxable. It highlighted that any amount remaining credited in the account for more than three years had to be treated as income in the subsequent year. Any refunds claimed by customers thereafter could be deducted in the relevant year.

6. Conclusion:
The court held in favor of the Revenue, stating that the credit balance in the post-warranty service scheme was deemed as income for the dealer. The court emphasized that the absence of a transfer to the profit and loss account did not alter the tax liability. Any unclaimed amounts had to be treated as income after a specified period.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the credit balance in the post-warranty service scheme was liable to tax as income for the dealer. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles and precedents governing the tax treatment of such amounts, emphasizing the importance of recognizing such balances as income after a specified period.

← Previous Next →