2017 (7) TMI 1008 - HC - Income Tax

Denying the benefits of sections 11 and 12 - assessee had transferred the Fresh Frozen Plasma Units to its sister concern at a rate lower than the market rate - Held that - The Tribunal reversed the decision of the Revenue authorities inter alia on the grounds that for number of years, there was no such instance of sale of the units to the sister concern at a reduced rate, the number of units represent a small portion of the total turnover, that such activity was discontinued in later years and most importantly, the said sister concern had advanced unsecured interest free loans of more than ₹ 3 crores over a long period of time. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee s explanation that shelf life of such product was extremely short and there were no immediate takers in the market. It was noticed that in certain cases, due to such reasons, the unit has sold to the other blood banks at the same rate. The Tribunal noted that the sister concern i.e. Celestial Biologicals Limited had provided for unsecured loan to the tune of ₹ 3.43 crores since the financial year 2003-04. Even going by moderate notional interest, the accumulated interest on loan till 31.03.2009 would reach ₹ 2.51 cores. No interest was charged by Calestial Biological Limited. The considerations of the Tribunal are based on facts and evidence on record. No question of law arises. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefits under sections 11 and 12 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals).
2. Application of section 13 of the Act to disallow benefits.
3. Allowance to carry forward the loss of the assessee trust.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision concerning the denial of benefits under sections 11 and 12 of the Act to the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had transferred Fresh Frozen Plasma Units (FFP) to its sister concern below market rate, leading to the invocation of section 13 of the Act, resulting in the cancellation of registration and denial of section 11 benefits. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal overturned these decisions citing various reasons. It noted the absence of such reduced-rate sales in prior years, the small proportion of units in total turnover, the discontinued nature of the activity, and the significant unsecured interest-free loans provided by the sister concern to the assessee over several years. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the short shelf life of the product and the lack of immediate market demand, pointing out similar sales to other blood banks at the same rate. The Tribunal highlighted the substantial unsecured loan amount provided by the sister concern and the absence of interest charges, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal due to factual considerations.

2. The Tribunal's analysis was grounded in factual evidence, indicating no legal questions for consideration. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances and evidence presented, emphasizing the lack of legal issues warranting appellate intervention. The Tribunal's detailed assessment of the factual matrix and the rationale behind the transactions involving the FFP units and the sister concern guided its conclusion to dismiss the Tax Appeal. The Tribunal's reliance on the factual record and the absence of legal ambiguities or errors in the application of relevant provisions of the Act supported the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

3. The Tribunal's comprehensive evaluation of the facts and evidence established the basis for its decision to dismiss the Tax Appeal. The Tribunal's scrutiny of the assessee's transactions with the sister concern, the nature of the FFP units, the historical context of the dealings, and the financial arrangements between the parties formed the crux of the Tribunal's reasoning. By emphasizing the factual intricacies and the absence of legal deficiencies in the proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that no legal issues necessitated further judicial intervention. The Tribunal's thorough examination of the case from both factual and legal perspectives underscored the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and upheld the respondent-assessee's position regarding the benefits under sections 11 and 12 of the Act and the allowance to carry forward the loss of the trust.