2012 (9) TMI 629 - SC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271 - difference in amount of loan shown in assessee s books of accounts and in decree filled for outstanding amount - Held that - As in the Books of Accounts of the assessee, the outstanding amount, as on 30th April, 1982, was Rs.52,07,873/-, including interest. However, the decree in favour of the Bank was for Rs.42,45,477/- because that was the amount indicated as the outstanding amount due and payable by the assessee to the Bank in its Books of Account. It appears that the Bank has not calculated the interest over the years possibly for the reason that, in its Accounts, this amount was classified as NPA , thus Section 271(1)(c) is not applicable - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of the waived amount by the bank.
2. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Taxability of the waived amount by the bank:
The case involved an assessee who had taken a loan from Citi Bank N.A. to purchase a hotel, which later resulted in a default in loan repayment. A consent decree was signed on 30th April, 1982, where the borrowers acknowledged their liability to the bank in a specific amount. However, discrepancies arose as the outstanding amount in the assessee's books was higher than the amount mentioned in the consent decree. The tax department sought to tax the variance as a waived amount by the bank, approximately Rs. ten lakhs. The court clarified that they were not concerned with the taxability of this amount. The discrepancy arose because the bank's decree was based on the amount indicated in the assessee's books, which did not include interest. The court noted that the bank had classified the amount as 'NPA' and had not calculated interest over the years. Therefore, the court concluded that in this particular case, the taxability of the waived amount was not applicable.

Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The tax department initiated proceedings against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the discrepancy in the outstanding amount mentioned in the books and the consent decree. The court observed that while the amount in the assessee's books was higher, the decree was based on the specific amount acknowledged by the borrowers. The court highlighted that the bank had not calculated interest on the amount due to its classification as 'NPA.' In light of these circumstances, the court held that Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the civil appeal filed by the assessee was allowed with no order as to costs.

This judgment clarifies the tax implications of a waived amount by a bank and the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in cases involving discrepancies between the outstanding amounts in the books of the assessee and the consent decree. The court's detailed analysis provides insights into how such discrepancies are treated in tax proceedings, emphasizing the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case to determine the taxability of waived amounts and the applicability of relevant tax provisions.