9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1122 - AT - Income TaxComputation of income of an assessee by AO under a head of income other than what was claimed - Held that - AO is competent to compute the income of an assessee under a head of income, other than what was claimed by the assessee, of course, after marshalling the facts properly and furnishing proper reasons. Merely by computing the interest accrued as income of the assessee instead of non taxable as claimed, the inter-se rights of the assessee under any other statutory framework does not get affected. There is no requirement under the Income Tax Act that the AO has to get an order of the court for income determination. The requirement u/s 281 of the Act to get a suit initiated to annul a transfer of property before effecting attachment is totally different and has no connection to this issue. The Income Tax Act is a self-contained Act and the AO is entitled to determine the head of income under which the income of a particular assessee is to be assessed. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd (2010 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) squarely applies to the facts of this case. The assessee s appeal on this issue is dismissed. Validity of trust - Holding the trust to be not a valid trust and consequently that section 161(l) of the Act is not applicable - whether all the transactions related to securitization are a facade worked out by the Bank and the assessee trust is not a valid trust? - Held that - That the procedures and processes involved in the formation of a trust have been followed is not in doubt. RBI Guidelines itself contemplate the securitization process to be carried out by the originator; Yes Bank in this case. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn of the point strenuously put forth by the Revenue that the originator has been the guiding force of the securitization process. Most of the infirmities/defects pointed out in the documents by the Revenue is mainly on the point that all the securitization transactions were carried out between 16.05.2008 and 20.05.2008 whereas the loan agreement was signed on 21.05.2008. The agreement between HPCL and Yes Bank was first signed on 15.05.2008, which provided that the standard format agreement will be signed. The standard format agreement was signed on 21.05.2008. All the procedures and documents related to the securitization process was carried out on 20.05.2008. The insistence of Revenue that only the standard format agreement has to be reckoned and not the agreement dated 15.05.2008 does not appear to be tenable. Even assuming that the agreement dated 15.05.2008 was only in the nature of a letter of intent, it cannot be disputed that the lender, Yes Bank had full knowledge of the loan and had disbursed the amount. Therefore, it is very likely that Yes Bank had initiated the securitization process, pending signing of the standard format agreement. These are all standard documents that are signed up in such transactions. The reference to the agreement in the documents related to the securitization process needs to be understood in this perspective. Even assuming that minor infirmities exist in the documents, those can at best be characterized as procedural defects and this alone is not enough to disregard the documents totally. It is a settled principle that a legal document has to be viewed in its entirety and mistakes in some of the clauses cannot, by itself, negate the existence of the documents. CIT(A) was wrong in holding that the assessee trust was not a valid trust. In our considered view all the necessary ingredients for the formation and existence of the trust have been fulfilled and all these documents, processes and money trail cannot be disregarded, only due to the marginal mistakes in the clauses in the documents and also the timing of signing of these documents. Accordingly we hold that the assessee Trust is a valid Trust. Ground of appeal No. 1 decided in favour of the assessee. Holding the trust was not a revocable trust/ contribution by beneficiaries was not a revocable transfer - Held that - In view of the discussion above and respectfully following the principles laid down in the above referred decision in the case of India Advantage Fund-VII (2015 (4) TMI 259 - ITAT BANGALORE) and Milestone Army Navy Trust (2015 (12) TMI 1647 - ITAT MUMBAI) 1703785 we hold that the assessee Trust is a revocable Trust and contribution by beneficiaries is a revocable transfer. Having held thus, it follows that the income shall be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries, i.e. the Mutual Funds who purchase the PTCs from the assessee trust. In this view of the matter, we allow this ground of appeal No. II raised by the assessee Diversion by overriding title - assessee s contention is that the amounts received by the assessee from Yes Bank under the Deed of Assignment dated 20th May, 2008 are diverted at source by an overriding title to the PTC holders (Mutual Funds) and therefore the amount of ₹ 21,49,72,486 /- handed over to the assessee and paid to the PTC holders in proportion to their respective investments is not income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 - Held that - As held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Tollygunge Club Ltd. (1977 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) every receipt in the hands of the assessee need not be its income and it is only when it bears the character of income at the time when it reaches the hands of the assessee that it becomes exigible to tax. In the case on hand, even at the initial stage, even before the money flows to the assessee, it was always clearly intended to be passed on to and only to the beneficiaries, i.e., the PTC holders in proportion to their interest in the receivables (underlying assets). Thus merely because the moneys flow through the assessee, it cannot be automatically inferred that it is income in the hands of the assessee. The money was always intended to be passed on to the PTC holders and therefore, it can be said that only the PTC holders had a claim on the money, if not an absolute charge. Hence, in our considered view, the principle of diversion of income at the source by overriding title is attracted in this case. In view of the above finding of fact rendered by us, we are of the considered opinion that by the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, the receivables are the income of the PTC holders, in this case the beneficiaries of the assessee trust and therefore, whether the status of the trust is to be characterized as Trust or AOP, the income passes on to the beneficiaries. In this view of the matter, the ground of appeal at III raised by the assessee is allowed. Treating the status of the assessee as AOP - Revenue s main contention is that all the players in the securitization process have acted together and in unison and have carried out an adventure in the nature of trade to earn income, which is in the nature of business , thus all the stake holders have to be assessed together as AOP . - Held that - All the Mutual Funds beneficiaries are shown to have purchased the PTCs separately and not together by a concerted action to earn income jointly. We find that the various averments made by the learned counsel for Revenue that there has been some concerted and coordinated action on the part of the beneficiaries in completing the securitization process, has not travelled beyond the stage of suspicion and surmise and therefore in our view Revenue has not discharged the onus of establishing the existence of an AOP in the case on hand. Even otherwise, since we have already held that the assessee trust is a valid trust, the controversy regarding treating the assessee as AOP does not arise. Consequently, this ground No. IV raised by the assessee is allowed. Invalidity of assessment and the confirmation by the CIT(A)- Held that - Since we have held the assessee to be a valid Trust, there is no question of the assessee being assessed in the capacity of an AOP , and therefore there is no requirement for adjudicating this ground No. V as the same has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. Enhancement of Income - Held that - Para 3.5 of the Loan Agreement states that interest has to be computed on number of day basis using 365 days as a year basis. The above wordings cannot be stretched to mean that the interest has to be charged on day to day basis. Also, the Deed of Assignment under which the assessee is to receive the amount clearly provides that the assessee is entitled to receive the amounts on the 1st of the next month and to be passed on to the PTC holders in the proportion to the amount of their investments on the very next day. In view of the above clear provisions laid out in para 3.5 of the Loan Agreement and Deed of Assignment, we are of the considered view and hold that it is crystal clear that the interest for a particular month accrues on the first day of the next month as laid out in para 3.5 of the Loan Agreement and recital in the Deed of Assignment. Accordingly, ground No. VI of assessee s appeal is allowed. Disallowance of expenses on accrual basis (if enhancement is upheld) - Held that - In this ground, the assessee has raised an alternate ground that if the enhancement to the income is allowed, then the corresponding outgo (expenditure) for March, 2009 be allowed. Since we have already held that the enhancement of the assessee s income on the interest income made by the learned CIT(A) is not tenable, the claim for disallowance of expenses on actual basis is now rendered infructuous, as it does not survive for consideration. The ground of appeal No. VII being infructuous is accordingly dismissed. Charge of interest under section 234B & 234C - Held that - The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala (2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court ) and we therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234C of the Act
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Trust. 2. Applicability of Sections 61 to 63 of the Income Tax Act regarding revocable transfers. 3. Diversion of income by overriding title. 4. Status of the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP). 5. Validity of the assessment order. 6. Enhancement of income by CIT(A). 7. Disallowance of expenses on accrual basis. 8. Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Trust: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee, Indian Corporate Loan Securitisation Trust 2008 Series 14, was a valid trust. The assessee argued that all legal requirements for the creation of a valid trust were fulfilled, including compliance with Section 7 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. The Revenue contended that the trust was not genuine, alleging that the transactions were orchestrated by Yes Bank and the mutual funds had acted in concert to earn profits, constituting an Association of Persons (AOP). The Tribunal found that despite minor procedural defects in documentation, the trust had complied with necessary legal requirements and was, therefore, valid. 2. Applicability of Sections 61 to 63 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee argued that the contributions made by the mutual funds represented "revocable transfer" as per Section 63 of the Act, thereby making the income taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the decision of the Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. India Advantage Fund VII, which explained the principles related to revocable transfers. The Tribunal held that the assessee trust was indeed a revocable trust and the income should be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries. 3. Diversion of Income by Overriding Title: The assessee contended that the income received from Yes Bank was diverted at source by an overriding title to the PTC holders (Mutual Funds). The Tribunal examined the clauses in the Deed of Assignment and the Trust Deed, which indicated that the PTC holders had an undivided interest in the receivables. The Tribunal concluded that there was a diversion of income by overriding title, and the income was not taxable in the hands of the assessee trust but in the hands of the beneficiaries. 4. Status of the Assessee as an AOP: The Revenue argued that the mutual funds and other stakeholders acted in concert to earn income, constituting an AOP. The Tribunal found that the mutual funds had independently subscribed to the PTCs and did not act together with a common purpose. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as an AOP. The Tribunal also noted that an AOP is not authorized to undertake securitization activities, further supporting the conclusion that the assessee was a valid trust and not an AOP. 5. Validity of the Assessment Order: The assessee contended that the assessment order was invalid as it was made in the status of an AOP, whereas the return was filed as a trust. The Tribunal held that since the assessee was determined to be a valid trust, the question of assessing it as an AOP did not arise, rendering this ground infructuous. 6. Enhancement of Income by CIT(A): The CIT(A) had enhanced the assessee's income by adding interest for the month of March 2009, holding that interest accrues on a day-to-day basis. The Tribunal, however, held that the interest for March 2009 accrued only on 1st April 2009, as per the terms of the Loan Agreement and Deed of Assignment. Therefore, the enhancement of income by CIT(A) was not upheld. 7. Disallowance of Expenses on Accrual Basis: The assessee had raised an alternate ground that if the enhancement of income was upheld, then the corresponding expenses should also be allowed. Since the Tribunal did not uphold the enhancement of income, this ground was rendered infructuous. 8. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The Tribunal held that the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C is consequential and mandatory, directing the AO to recompute the interest while giving effect to the order. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, holding the assessee to be a valid trust and not an AOP, and ruled that the income should be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries. The enhancement of income by CIT(A) was not upheld. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
|
