2021 (9) TMI 19 - AT - Income Tax

Taxability of amount of loan waived by the financial institution on account of one time settlement - income either u/s. 28(iv) or u/s. 41(1) - AO did not accept treatment of waiver amount by the assessee, and held that since the assessee has shown the relief by way of waiver of part of principal amount of loan in the profit loss account, the character of loan changed from capital to revenue, and therefore, the same liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee - HELD THAT - When the matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority, claim of the assessee was allowed by relying upon the decision in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. 2018 (5) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT as held that the waiver of the amount of term loan availed by the assessee under OTS will not fall under the purview of income either u/s. 28(iv) or u/s. 41(1). Taking support from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the sum amount in dispute representing waiver of loan liability was on the capital accounts, and not in the nature of income, more so when no deduction and allowance was made in respect of such loan in any assessment year. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts of the case in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, and allowed the claim of the assessee, which we do not find any infirmityground of appeal of the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
Taxability of loan waived by a financial institution under a one-time settlement scheme.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad challenging the deletion of the addition of the principal part of a loan waived by a bank. The Revenue contended that the waiver amount should be taxed as income. The assessee, a manufacturing and trading company, had settled a loan with IDBI Bank under a one-time settlement scheme and received a waiver of the principal portion of the loan. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee, stating that the character of the receipt had changed from capital to revenue, making it taxable. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim by relying on a Supreme Court judgment stating that the waiver of a loan amount could not be brought to tax as it was on capital account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the waiver amount was not in the nature of income and was rightly treated as capital, as no deduction or allowance was made in any assessment year regarding the loan. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

This judgment primarily revolves around the taxability of the amount of loan waived by a financial institution under a one-time settlement scheme. The key issue was whether the waived amount should be treated as income or capital in the hands of the assessee. The AO argued that since the assessee had shown the waiver amount in the profit & loss account, it should be taxed as income. However, the CIT(A) relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the assessee's claim that the waived amount was on capital account and not taxable as income. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) and emphasized that the waiver was rightly treated as capital, especially since no deduction or allowance was previously made in relation to the loan. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and rejected the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the waived amount was not taxable income.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that the amount of loan waived by a financial institution under a one-time settlement scheme should be treated as capital and not taxable income. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant tax laws and a Supreme Court ruling. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the nature of the receipt and the absence of any previous deductions or allowances related to the loan. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting that the waived amount was rightly considered capital in nature, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.