9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axable in the year of collection ? " The assessee, during the assessment year 1983-84, was running a cold storage for storing potatoes and other agricultural produce and its activities were governed under the U. P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976. By section 26 of that Act an owner, a licensee, is prohibited from taking or receiving for storage or any other service rendered to the hirer, any amount over and above the charges fixed by the State Government under section 9 of that Act. In 1982, prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, i.e., from February 1, 1982, to January 31, 1983, the Government had fixed the maximum charges at the rate of Rs. 17 per quintal. Till July, 1982, the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed by the petitioners. Between the period September 4, 1982, to November 12, 1982, a sum of Rs.75,293 was collected by the assessee being the difference of Rs. 1.50 per quintal and the said amount was deposited with the District Magistrate. This amount of Rs. 75.293 was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee by the Income-tax Officer, which has been deleted by the Tribunal. It is in the background of the aforesaid facts that the present application has been moved by the Revenue seeking a reference of the question set out earlier. We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue. The case of the assessee throughout was that he had wrongly been taxed on the disputed amount and no part of that amount had accrued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the Income-tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt, yet the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-keeping, an entry is made about a 'hypothetical income', which does not materialise . . . where, however, the income can be said not to have resulted at all, there is obviously neither accrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account." The above principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in its later decision, in CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 and referring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was, whether the additional amount withdrawn by the assessee had accrued as income and was liable to tax at that stage. Holding in favour of the assessee, the Supreme Court observed as under (headnote) "... the entire amount was in dispute in the appeal filed by the State Government and the dispute was regarded by the court as real and substantial because the respondent was not permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the State Government without furnishing a security bond for refunding the amount in the event of the appeal being allowed. There was no absolute right to receive the amount at that stage. If the appeal were allowed in its entirety, the right to payment of enhanced compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
