2018 (6) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Payment made to owners of the agricultural land from whom the land was purchased - Held that - The explanation given by revenue u/s 37(1) is not well - thus this is to decide what constitutes infraction of other provisions of law - other submission is that the such amount has to be taken as falling within the mischief of the said provision, in our opinion, is an incorrect premise - hence no question of law arises. Admit following question of law - Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the sum of ₹ 27,11,797/- on account of interest, could not be sustained in the circumstances of the case?

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of ITAT decision regarding interest amount of ?27,11,797.
2. Legality of payment of ?1,05,86,958 to farmer/owners for land purchase.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the interpretation of the decision made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the sum of ?27,11,797 on account of interest. The court considered whether the ITAT erred in holding that this interest amount could not be sustained in the circumstances of the case. The Revenue argued that the ITAT should not have disregarded the amount based on how it was accounted for in the books or the separate amount used for the purpose. The court opined that the Revenue's broad interpretation of the Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act was not well-founded in this case. It was emphasized that not every alleged violation of law attracts Section 37(1), but only violations resulting in penal consequences as determined by that law. The court concluded that the Revenue's argument did not raise a question of law, and notice was issued on this specific question for further consideration.

2. The second issue raised concerns the legality of a payment of ?1,05,86,958 made by the assessee to the farmer/owners of agricultural land from whom the land was purchased. The Revenue contended that the ITAT should not have accepted the amount, as it was allegedly a violation of the Stamp Act and other laws to evade provisions. The court disagreed with the Revenue's argument, stating that the interpretation suggested would extend the jurisdiction of revenue authorities beyond the Income Tax Act. It was clarified that Section 37(1) does not cover every violation of law, but only those resulting in penal consequences as determined by that specific law. The court held that the alleged violation in this case did not fall within the scope of Section 37(1) and therefore, no question of law arose on this issue. Notice was issued solely on the question of law framed regarding the interest amount issue, and the respondent's counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the assessee for further proceedings.