9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the SOD/Indexing system followed by the assessee can be ignored while computing the income. 2. Whether the income accounted on that basis is not the same as the income which has accrued or arisen under the mercantile system. 3. Whether the differential income credited by the appellant was hypothetical or theoretical income and not real income. Summary: Issue 1: SOD/Indexing System Validity The assessee, a financial company, adopted the "SUM OF DIGITS METHOD" (SOD) for recognizing income from hire-purchase and leasing businesses. The SOD method apportions income over the period of the contract based on reducing balances. The Assessing Officer (AO) challenged this method, arguing that the income should be computed as per the mercantile system u/s 145(1) of the Income-tax Act. The AO disallowed the assessee's claim of Rs. 52,83,931 as income not accrued, asserting that the books of account maintained by the assessee were true and fair. Issue 2: Accrual of Income Under Mercantile System The CIT(Appeals) observed that income from hire purchase and leasing should be computed on an accrual basis, not the SOD method. The CIT(Appeals) held that the terms of the hire purchase agreement should prevail over the method adopted by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) concluded that the finance charges indicated in the hire purchase agreement should be spread equally over the contract period, rejecting the SOD method for tax purposes. Issue 3: Hypothetical or Theoretical Income The CIT(Appeals) relied on Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that tax can only be levied on real income, not hypothetical or notional income. The CIT(Appeals) concluded that the differential income credited by the appellant was hypothetical and not real income that accrued or was received during the year. Consequently, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 52,83,931. Tribunal's Decision: 1. Hire Purchase Agreements: The Tribunal agreed with the AO that the SOD method for recognizing finance income in hire purchase agreements represents real income accrued to the assessee. The Tribunal restored the AO's order, rejecting the assessee's claim for excluding differential income related to hire purchase agreements. 2. Lease Agreements: The Tribunal held that the income from lease rentals should be recognized as per the lease agreements, i.e., the monthly lease rental specified in the agreements. The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude any excess income recognized on the SOD method beyond the agreed lease rental, as it represents hypothetical income not accrued in the relevant year. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision regarding hire purchase agreements but directed the AO to exclude excess income recognized on the SOD method for lease agreements, verifying the bifurcation of differential income accordingly.
|
