9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 795 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 41 - remission or cessation of liabilities - Held that - In the case in hand, we observe that in first instance receipt of share application money does not result in generation of creditors or trade liabilities. Secondly, the assessee throughout reflected share application money in its Balance Sheet acknowledging receipt of such amount, therefore, remission or cessation of liabilities by flux of time does not arise. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and judgments referred above, we hold that share application money received by assessee and duly reflected in the Balance Sheet against which the shares have been allotted by following due procedure of law in the succeeding assessment year cannot be treated as remission/cessation of liability. The provisions of section 41(1)(a) were wrongly invoked by the Assessing Officer to tax share application money. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of treating share application money as cessation of liability. 3. Appropriateness of invoking Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The core issue was whether the share application money pending allotment could be taxed under Section 41(1)(a) as cessation of liability. The assessee argued that the share application money was received in Financial Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and was duly reflected in the balance sheets of those years. The shares were subsequently allotted in Financial Year 2013-14. The Tribunal noted that Section 41(1)(a) is applicable when there is a remission or cessation of a trading liability that was previously allowed as a deduction. Since the share application money did not constitute a trading liability and there was no remission or cessation, the invocation of Section 41(1)(a) was incorrect. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vardhman Overseas Ltd., emphasizing that a unilateral action cannot bring about a cessation or remission of liability. 2. Validity of Treating Share Application Money as Cessation of Liability: The Tribunal found that the authorities below had erred in treating the share application money as cessation of liability. The share application money was consistently reflected in the balance sheets, and the shares were eventually allotted, which negated any claim of cessation or remission. The Tribunal highlighted that the receipt of share application money does not create a trading liability, and the consistent reflection of this money in the balance sheets indicated an acknowledgment of the debt. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Section 41(1)(a) were wrongly invoked by the Assessing Officer. 3. Appropriateness of Invoking Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee contended that Section 68, which deals with unexplained cash credits, was not applicable because the share application money was not received in the assessment year under consideration but in prior years. The Tribunal agreed, stating that Section 68 applies only to sums credited in the books of the assessee for the "previous year" under consideration. Since the share application money was received in Financial Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, and not in the year under appeal, Section 68 could not be invoked. The Tribunal supported this conclusion by citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd., which held that Section 68 cannot be applied to credit balances from previous years. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the share application money, which was duly reflected in the balance sheets and against which shares were allotted, could not be treated as cessation of liability under Section 41(1)(a). Furthermore, Section 68 was not applicable as the money was received in prior financial years. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on Friday, the 08th day of December, 2017.
|
