9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in earlier years. 4. The ld. DR for the revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present appeal is in relation to the treatment of the sales tax subsidy. During the year under consideration, the assessee had received sales tax subsidy of Rs. 12,58,32,695/-which was declared as capital receipts in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer show caused the assessee as to why the said receipts should not be treated as revenue receipts in the hands of the assessee in view of the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. 286 ITR 1 (P&H). Reply of the assessee before the Assessing Officer is incorporated at pages 2 to 4 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, thereafter has gone through the claims of subsidy granted by the Government of Gujrat and had held the same to be revenue receipts taxable in the hands of the assessee in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. (supra). 6. We find that the issue of treatment of sales tax subsidy in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee in the preceding years following the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries (supra). However it was pointed out by the learned A.R. for the assessee that the legal position is uncertain and there are decisions of other High Courts and Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court under which the sales tax subsidy has been held to be capital receipts. Our attention was drawn to the scheme dated 11.9.1995 placed at pages 56 to 77 of the Paper Book and it was pointed out by the learned A.R. for the assessee that the subsidy was given for establishing new premier/prestigious units in the State of Gujarat. Clause 5(ii,(iv) and (x) lays down criteria of the industry which qualifies for the said scheme It was further pointed out by the learned A.R. for the assessee that the sales tax subsidy available to a unit established in Gujarat varies on account of the amount of investment and also the area where it was located. Certain conditions of the said scheme as per the learned A.R. for the assessee were not there in any other scheme. One such condition was wherein the assessee had to contribute 2% of the sales tax incentives availed and 3% of deferred amount to Gokul Gram Yojna. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable in the hands of the assessee. The learned A.R. for the assessee pointed out that the scheme before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was for the modernization of existing unit. 7. Further contention of the learned A.R. for the assessee was that under the scheme formulated by the Government of Gujarat, there was no outflow of Government and the scheme was formulated to promote industrial growth in the State of Gujarat. The basic idea was to establish units in the State in order to provide employment to the local person for which the Government formulated the scheme under which the sales tax was collected by the assessee, which was not deposited in the accounts of the Government. This incentive was given after start of the unit but the same could not be stated to be for running the unit, as per the learned counsel. The learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT [306 ITR 392 (SC)] and pointed out that the purpose of the scheme was a policy enactment for the State and in order to determine the nature of subsidy granted, the purpose of the scheme was determining factor and timi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na was considered in DCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. in ITA No.2188/Del/2010 and the Tribunal had held the receipt to be capital receipt. Further reliance was placed on Napco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). 8. The learned A.R. for the assessee concluded by stating that the Tribunal in the orders relating to the earlier years had merely followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries (supra) and had not considered the factum of the scheme of State of Gujarat. The learned A.R. for the assessee pointed out that ground No.3 raised was purely without prejudice to the ground No.2 raised by the assessee that the subsidy received by the assessee arose in the course of business and the same was to be held as business income in the hands of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abhishek Industries Vs. JCIT in ITA No.321/Chd/2009 relating to assessment year 2004-05 - order dated 27.9.2011. 9. The learned D.R. for the Revenue pointed out that the issue raised vide ground No.2 in the present appeal is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e identical to the issue raised in the assessment year 2005-06. 11. The contention of the learned A.R. for the assessee now before us, however, is that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) with regard to the taxability of incentives bestowed to new/extended sugar factory. It was pointed out by the learned A.R. for the assessee that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) following the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. (supra) had held that the subsidy received by the assessee was in the nature of capital receipt, since the object behind the same was setting up of new unit/expansion of existing business. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Rasoi Ltd. (supra) pointing out that the taxability of the receipts given by way of subsidy, essentially boils down to the purpose for which the subsidy was granted. The contention of the assessee was that the purpose of granting exemption from sales tax for a fixed period of time, in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as failed to point out the contents of the earlier scheme of State of Gujarat and whether the scheme under consideration for the year under appeal is similar to the earlier scheme of State of Gujarat. In the absence of the same, we find no merit in the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Birla VXL (supra) and the plea of the assessee that the facts of the case are squarely covered by the said decision. It may also be brought on record that the assessee itself in the preceding year i.e. assessment year 2005-06 had filed a declaration under section 158A(1) of the Act and it was pointed out that the issue was identical to the issue raised in assessment years 2003-04 and 200405, where the appeal of the assessee was pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Request was made before us to apply the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 to the issue raised in assessment year 2005-06. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and respectfully following the earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, we confirm the order of the CIT (Appeals) in holding that the sales tax subsidy receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
