1994 (2) TMI 111 - AT - Income Tax

A Firm, Actual User, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Fixed Deposit, High Court, Sale Proceeds, Supreme Court

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 99,69,146 representing profit on sale of 630 MT of isabutanol.
2. Deductibility of customs duty, fine, and penalty.
3. Enhancement of liability due to exchange fluctuation.
4. Loss on chits.
5. Disallowances out of car expenses and telephone expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 99,69,146 Representing Profit on Sale of 630 MT of Isabutanol:

The primary issue was whether the profit from the sale of 630 MT of isabutanol should be assessed in the assessment year 1989-90. The Customs authorities had detained the goods, claiming the import was not valid under the REP licenses. The Collector of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed a fine and penalty. The assessee challenged the detention and the confiscation orders in the Gujarat High Court (GHC) and later in the Supreme Court (SC). The SC ordered the sale of the goods and the proceeds to be deposited with the Registrar of GHC. The Customs Tribunal later reduced the fine and penalty. The CIT (Appeals) held that the sale was completed in March 1989 based on the SC's acceptance of the sale offer, and thus, the profit accrued to the assessee in the assessment year 1989-90.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the sale could not be assessed in the assessment year under appeal because the property in the goods had vested with the Customs, and the sale was conducted by the Customs, not the assessee. The Tribunal held that the sale consideration was collected by the Customs and deposited with the GHC, and the final decision on the quantum of fine and penalty was made in 1991. Therefore, the sale should be considered as having concluded in 1991, and the profit from the sale should not be included in the assessment year 1989-90.

2. Deductibility of Customs Duty, Fine, and Penalty:

The CIT (Appeals) disallowed the deduction for customs duty, fine, and penalty on the grounds that they were not paid over to the Customs and were levied for infraction of law. The Tribunal noted that the customs duty and fine were statutory levies and should be deductible if they were paid or collected by the Customs. However, since the Tribunal held that the sale was not assessable in the assessment year under appeal, the question of deductibility of customs duty, fine, and penalty became infructuous and was not necessary to be answered.

3. Enhancement of Liability Due to Exchange Fluctuation:

The CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim for enhancement in cost due to exchange fluctuation, stating that the delay in making the payment to the supplier was the making of the assessee and not related to the purchase and sale. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on this issue as it became infructuous due to the conclusion that the sale was not assessable in the assessment year under appeal.

4. Loss on Chits:

The assessee claimed a loss on chits, arguing that the total amount paid over and above the credits was in the nature of interest paid for the use of the money received earlier. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the amount taken from the chit was used in the business and allow the deduction of the loss if it was found to have been used for the business. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Instruction No. 1175, which advised allowing such deductions to reduce litigation.

5. Disallowances Out of Car Expenses and Telephone Expenses:

The Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the disallowances out of car expenses and telephone expenses made by the authorities.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed in part. The Tribunal deleted the inclusion of Rs. 99 lakhs and odd as profit from the sale of 630 MT of isabutanol in the assessment year 1989-90. The issues relating to the deductibility of customs duty, fine, and penalty, and the enhancement of liability due to exchange fluctuation were rendered infructuous. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the deduction of the loss on chits if it was used for the business. The disallowances out of car expenses and telephone expenses were upheld.

← Previous Next →