2005 (8) TMI 296 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of short-term capital gain.
2. Applicability of Section 43(5) of the IT Act, 1961.
3. Taxation of real income versus notional income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment of Short-Term Capital Gain:
The primary issue in this appeal was the assessment of short-term capital gain amounting to Rs. 2,72,50,000, which was initially disclosed by the assessee but later omitted in a revised return. The assessee, a public sector bank, argued that the transaction of purchasing 2 crore units of US 64 from the Bank of Saurashtra and selling them to Standard Chartered Bank did not materialize due to non-delivery of the units by the Bank of Saurashtra. Consequently, the assessee contended that no real gain accrued to it, and thus, no tax should be levied on the notional gain.

The Tribunal noted that although there was a firm commitment for the purchase and sale of the units, the failure of the Bank of Saurashtra to deliver the units nullified the transaction. The Tribunal emphasized that the income-tax is a tax on real income, and since no actual income resulted from the transaction, the notional gain should not be taxed. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which stated that if no income results, there cannot be a tax despite any book-keeping entries of hypothetical income.

2. Applicability of Section 43(5) of the IT Act, 1961:
The CIT(A) had expressed the view that the transaction could also be assessed under Section 43(5) of the IT Act, which pertains to speculative transactions. The assessee argued that as a public sector undertaking, it was not entitled to indulge in speculation and had no intention of completing the transaction without delivery of the units.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the intention was to complete the transaction with the delivery of the units. Since the transaction was not settled by delivery, the provisions of Section 43(5) were not applicable. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s view on the applicability of Section 43(5) was not well-founded.

3. Taxation of Real Income versus Notional Income:
The Tribunal reiterated the principle that income-tax is levied on real income and not on notional income. The Tribunal highlighted that the contract for the purchase and sale of US 64 units did not materialize due to the non-delivery of the units. Therefore, the notional gains based on the commitment made in respect of the units should not be assessed as income.

The Tribunal also considered the subsequent events, including the receipt of damages from the Bank of Saurashtra and the payment of damages to Standard Chartered Bank, which further supported the view that the transaction did not result in real income during the relevant assessment year.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000 on account of short-term capital gain was not justified for the year under appeal. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition was deleted. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of real income taxation and the non-applicability of speculative transaction provisions under Section 43(5).