2017 (2) TMI 1122 - ITAT MUMBAI

Computation of income of an assessee by AO under a head of income other than what was claimed - Held that:- AO is competent to compute the income of an assessee under a head of income, other than what was claimed by the assessee, of course, after marshalling the facts properly and furnishing proper reasons. Merely by computing the interest accrued as income of the assessee instead of non taxable as claimed,, the inter-se rights of the assessee under any other statutory framework does not get affected. There is no requirement under the Income Tax Act that the AO has to get an order of the court for income determination. The requirement u/s 281 of the Act to get a suit initiated to annul a transfer of property before effecting attachment is totally different and has no connection to this issue. The Income Tax Act is a self-contained Act and the AO is entitled to determine the head of income under which the income of a particular assessee is to be assessed. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd (2010 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) squarely applies to the facts of this case. The assessee's appeal on this issue is dismissed.

Validity of trust - Holding the trust to be not a valid trust and consequently that section 161(l) of the Act is not applicable - whether all the transactions related to securitization are a facade worked out by the Bank and the assessee trust is not a valid trust? - Held that:- That the procedures and processes involved in the formation of a trust have been followed is not in doubt. RBI Guidelines itself contemplate the securitization process to be carried out by the originator; Yes Bank in this case. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn of the point strenuously put forth by the Revenue that the originator has been the guiding force of the securitization process. Most of the infirmities/defects pointed out in the documents by the Revenue is mainly on the point that all the securitization transactions were carried out between 16.05.2008 and 20.05.2008 whereas the loan agreement was signed on 21.05.2008. The agreement between HPCL and Yes Bank was first signed on 15.05.2008, which provided that the standard format agreement will be signed. The standard format agreement was signed on 21.05.2008. All the procedures and documents related to the securitization process was carried out on 20.05.2008. The insistence of Revenue that only the standard format agreement has to be reckoned and not the agreement dated 15.05.2008 does not appear to be tenable. Even assuming that the agreement dated 15.05.2008 was only in the nature of a letter of intent, it cannot be disputed that the lender, Yes Bank had full knowledge of the loan and had disbursed the amount. Therefore, it is very likely that Yes Bank had initiated the securitization process, pending signing of the standard format agreement. These are all standard documents that are signed up in such transactions. The reference to the agreement in the documents related to the securitization process needs to be understood in this perspective. Even assuming that minor infirmities exist in the documents, those can at best be characterized as procedural defects and this alone is not enough to disregard the documents totally. It is a settled principle that a legal document has to be viewed in its entirety and mistakes in some of the clauses cannot, by itself, negate the existence of the documents.

CIT(A) was wrong in holding that the assessee trust was not a valid trust. In our considered view all the necessary ingredients for the formation and existence of the trust have been fulfilled and all these documents, processes and money trail cannot be disregarded, only due to the marginal mistakes in the clauses in the documents and also the timing of signing of these documents. Accordingly we hold that the assessee Trust is a valid Trust. Ground of appeal No. 1 decided in favour of the assessee.

Holding the trust was not a revocable trust/ contribution by beneficiaries was not a revocable transfer - Held that:- In view of the discussion above and respectfully following the principles laid down in the above referred decision in the case of India Advantage Fund-VII (2015 (4) TMI 259 - ITAT BANGALORE) and Milestone Army Navy Trust (2015 (12) TMI 1647 - ITAT MUMBAI) 1703785 we hold that the assessee Trust is a revocable Trust and contribution by beneficiaries is a revocable transfer. Having held thus, it follows that the income shall be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries, i.e. the Mutual Funds who purchase the PTCs from the assessee trust. In this view of the matter, we allow this ground of appeal No. II raised by the assessee

Diversion by overriding title - assessee’s contention is that the amounts received by the assessee from Yes Bank under the Deed of Assignment dated 20th May, 2008 are diverted at source by an overriding title to the PTC holders (Mutual Funds) and therefore the amount of ₹ 21,49,72,486 /- handed over to the assessee and paid to the PTC holders in proportion to their respective investments is not income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 - Held that:- As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Tollygunge Club Ltd. (1977 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) every receipt in the hands of the assessee need not be its income and it is only when it bears the character of income at the time when it reaches the hands of the assessee that it becomes exigible to tax. In the case on hand, even at the initial stage, even before the money flows to the assessee, it was always clearly intended to be passed on to and only to the beneficiaries, i.e., the PTC holders in proportion to their interest in the receivables (underlying assets). Thus merely because the moneys flow through the assessee, it cannot be automatically inferred that it is income in the hands of the assessee. The money was always intended to be passed on to the PTC holders and therefore, it can be said that only the PTC holders had a claim on the money, if not an absolute charge. Hence, in our considered view, the principle of diversion of income at the source by overriding title is attracted in this case. In view of the above finding of fact rendered by us, we are of the considered opinion that by the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, the receivables are the income of the PTC holders, in this case the beneficiaries of the assessee trust and therefore, whether the status of the trust is to be characterized as Trust or AOP, the income passes on to the beneficiaries. In this view of the matter, the ground of appeal at III raised by the assessee is allowed.

Treating the status of the assessee as "AOP" - Revenue’s main contention is that all the players in the securitization process have acted together and in unison and have carried out an adventure in the nature of trade to earn income, which is in the nature of “business”, thus all the stake holders have to be assessed together as “AOP”. - Held that:- All the Mutual Funds beneficiaries are shown to have purchased the PTCs separately and not together by a concerted action to earn income jointly. We find that the various averments made by the learned counsel for Revenue that there has been some concerted and coordinated action on the part of the beneficiaries in completing the securitization process, has not travelled beyond the stage of suspicion and surmise and therefore in our view Revenue has not discharged the onus of establishing the existence of an AOP in the case on hand. Even otherwise, since we have already held that the assessee trust is a valid trust, the controversy regarding treating the assessee as AOP does not arise. Consequently, this ground No. IV raised by the assessee is allowed.

Invalidity of assessment and the confirmation by the CIT(A)- Held that:- Since we have held the assessee to be a valid Trust, there is no question of the assessee being assessed in the capacity of an ‘AOP’, and therefore there is no requirement for adjudicating this ground No. V as the same has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

Enhancement of Income - Held that:- Para 3.5 of the Loan Agreement states that interest has to be computed on number of day basis using 365 days as a year basis. The above wordings cannot be stretched to mean that the interest has to be charged on day to day basis. Also, the Deed of Assignment under which the assessee is to receive the amount clearly provides that the assessee is entitled to receive the amounts on the 1st of the next month and to be passed on to the PTC holders in the proportion to the amount of their investments on the very next day. In view of the above clear provisions laid out in para 3.5 of the Loan Agreement and Deed of Assignment, we are of the considered view and hold that it is crystal clear that the interest for a particular month accrues on the first day of the next month as laid out in para 3.5 of the Loan Agreement and recital in the Deed of Assignment. Accordingly, ground No. VI of assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Disallowance of expenses on accrual basis (if enhancement is upheld) - Held that:- In this ground, the assessee has raised an alternate ground that if the enhancement to the income is allowed, then the corresponding outgo (expenditure) for March, 2009 be allowed. Since we have already held that the enhancement of the assessee’s income on the interest income made by the learned CIT(A) is not tenable, the claim for disallowance of expenses on actual basis is now rendered infructuous, as it does not survive for consideration. The ground of appeal No. VII being infructuous is accordingly dismissed.

Charge of interest under section 234B & 234C - Held that:- The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala (2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court ) and we therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234C of the Act