9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the income from contract work due to lack of real income despite the assessee using the mercantile system of accounting? Analysis: The case involved a firm deriving income from various sources, including a railway project where no income was realized. The firm maintained the mercantile method of accounting. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claimed expenditure of Rs. 2,18,442 as the assessee failed to provide verifiable accounts and work-in-progress register. The Officer estimated net profits at 15% of gross receipts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the decision but reduced net profits to 12.5%. The Tribunal ruled that as the payment under the contract work was not finalized, there was no real income for the year, leading to the deletion of Rs. 16,753 from the total income. The High Court emphasized the distinction between the mercantile and cash basis systems of accounting, where the former recognizes income when the right to receive it arises, not necessarily upon actual receipt. Anticipated losses and contingent liabilities are not allowable under the mercantile system. The firm's entry of Rs. 2,18,442 on the debit side was subject to conditions such as legal liability and revenue expenditure. As the firm failed to provide acceptable accounts, the Tribunal rightly rejected the debit entry. The receipt of Rs. 1,34,028 from the railways, however, was considered income accrued, justifying the estimation of net profits by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Court dismissed the relevance of a subsequent suit filed by the railways for recovery, stating it would be treated as a business loss in the year of recovery. The mercantile system does not encompass all provisional or contingent payments. Ultimately, the Court held that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to law, answering the referred question in the negative and allowing the reference with no costs incurred. In a separate judgment, Justice S. K. Ray agreed with the decision to answer the question in the negative, affirming the High Court's ruling on the matter.
|
