Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 1996 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (5) TMI 2 - SC - Income TaxAccrual of income for bank - Bank purchasing property on behalf of its constituents - bank had received margin money from its constituents in respect of these purchases - constituents failed to pay the balance amount by the stipulated date. The bank forfeited the margin money and adjusted the same against the purchase price which the bank had paid for purchasing the securities and showed the balance of the price as the cost of purchasing the bonds - whether bank has right to adjust the margin money to reduce the purchase price of the bonds? - HC held that the profits and gains of the bank would arise only when the bank sold the securities or redeemed them at the time of maturity if it had become the owner of the securities and as the bank became the owner of the securities at the same time when it became the owner of the margin amount also, there was nothing unnatural or illegal in the bank taking into account this margin amount which had become its money at that time, in arriving at its cost of the securities. HELD THAT:- This is not a case of pre-deposit of money for acquisition of licence or business contract which had to be kept deposited with the principal for the entire duration of the period of contract. Each deposit was made for a specific transaction. The bank undertook to purchase the securities for and on behalf of its constituents. The bank's practice was to take a deposit before purchasing the security, which was liable to be forfeited in case of default. The money was received and forfeited incidentally and in the course of day-to-day banking business. After the forfeiture, the money became the bank's own money. The Income-tax Officer was right in treating this forfeited money as income of the assessee earned in the usual course of banking business. The bank has purchased the securities at face value. Its cost cannot be anything less than the price which was actually paid by the bank. The bank would have handed over the securities to the constituent if he had not defaulted. In that case, the bank would have been entitled only to the brokerage. Since the constituent defaulted, the deposit amount was forfeited and the end result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the securities and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. The forfeited amount was the bank's income made in the course of its banking business and had to be assessed accordingly in the year in which it became the bank's money. The accrual of income cannot be deferred by adjusting the deposit amount against the cost of the securities. It may have utilised the deposits although there is no finding of fact to that effect, as part payment of the price of the securities. But after its forfeiture, the deposit amount became the property of the bank. The money that was utilised for the purchase of the securities was the bank's money. No question of reduction of the cost of the securities by adjustment of the deposit amount can arise in the facts of this case. Decided in favour of revenue.
|