Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 392 - AT - Income TaxInvoking the provisions of sec 28 - Issue of shares by amalgamated company to the its shareholders in lieu of transfer of undertaking of the amalgamating company - whether are all transfers within the meaning of section 2(47)(i) - whether CIT(A) erred in considering the provisions of Section 47(vii) when it has not been relied upon by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) - Held that:- Section 28 sets out two conditions precedents for such taxability i.e. (i) that there should be benefits or perquisites and that (ii) that such benefits or perquisites should arise from the business or exercise of the profession. In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v. CIT (2003 (1) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) in a significant distinction between revenue and capital receipts, held that waiver of principal amount in respect of imports of plant and machinery could, by no stretch of logic, be treated as 'business income', and, therefore, as an income taxable under section 28(iv). One must bear in mind the fact that when a particular advantage, perquisite or receipt is not in the nature of income, there cannot be any occasion to bring the same to tax under section 28(iv). In the case of Padmaraje R Kadambande v. CIT (1992 (4) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT) observed the amounts received by the assessee during the financial year in question have to be regarded as capital receipts, and, therefore, are not income within meaning of section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act. This clearly shows, as is the settled law, that a capital receipt, in principle, is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax. Howsoever liberal or narrow be the interpretation of expression 'income', it cannot alter character of a receipt, i.e. convert a capital receipt into revenue receipt or vice versa. The crucial distinction between capital and revenue cannot be blurred or nullified by even the most liberal interpretation of expression 'income'. Also see Dr K George Thomas v. CIT (1985 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT) wherein held that the burden is on the revenue to establish that the receipt is of a revenue nature" though "once a receipt is found to be of revenue character, whether it comes under exemption or not, it is for the revenue to establish". To sum up, unless it is a revenue receipt, it cannot be in the nature of income [except in a situations in which capital receipts are specifically included in the definition of income such as under section 2(24)(vi)], and unless it is in nature of income, it cannot be considered for taxation under section 28(iv). The reference to benefits which can be brought to tax under section 28(iv) for benefits 'arising from the business' also indicates that such benefit must be a business receipt, or revenue receipt, in nature. This was a case of amalgamation in the nature of merger, an exercise in that of pooling of resources, as also pooling of assets, into the company in which two or more companies are blended. It is a process of corporate reconstruction and it is only with the approval of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that this exercise is carried out. As a result of amalgamation, the assessee, being the transferee company, will increase its assets and liabilities, and, even if there be any benefit in the process, such a benefit can only be in the capital field because it is relatable to the non trading assets and capital. What it affects is the capital structure of the assessee company and the manner in which business is consolidated. Applying the test laid down by in the case of Seshasayee Brothers (supra) the benefit is referable to the capital, and is thus not of an income nature. Even if, as the Assessing Officer observes, "it can be surmised that the assessee is benefited in a myriad ways by way of amalgamation", it does not lead to the conclusion that the benefit is in revenue field which alone can be treated as income and thus be considered for taxability under section 28(iv) of the Act. The onus is on the AO to demonstrate that the receipt is of the revenue nature.There is no material whatsoever before us to indicate that the benefit, even if accruing to the assessee, was in revenue field, in the course of assessee's business dealings or of trading nature. Thus there was no occasion to invoke Section 28(iv) - CIT(A) was quite justified in his observations that "the amalgamation is not an adventure in the nature of trade" and that "this transaction is clearly a capital account transaction" - in favour of assessee.
|