9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1301 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of society - Temporary parking of such unutilized funds from Government Grants - AO treated the interest income earned as revenue receipt and taxable income of the assessee - Principle of consistency - AO noticed that the assessee had invested Rs. 100 crores in SBI liquid mutual funds during the year and there was a switch from one scheme to another scheme of mutual funds resulting in a short-term capital gain HELD THAT - During the assessment year in question the income earned i.e. interest from temporary parking of such unutilized funds and short-term capital gains arises from a mere switch between schemes in liquid and mutual funds of the same corpus. In the present case it is importantly noted that in the assessee s own case for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2020-21 the AO accepted the assessee s claim of exemption and was not made any addition on this count. Hence two different views cannot be taken in respect of same issue when the material fact are identical and no any discrepancies have pointed out. It is settled law that the violation of principle of consistency is not sustainable in law. We place reliance on the decision of Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that though the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to Income Tax proceedings it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order for the said years . In the present case the interest income earned on unutilised govt. grant perked temporarily does not constitute taxable income in the hands of the assessee and the short-term capital gains arose out of a claim from mere credit investment is not allowable to be taxed independently especially in the light of consistently acceptance in the subsequent years. Besides that the assessee in the subsequent years transferred such amount to the Govt. of Assam vide challan no.04/1673 dated 06.04.2018 therefore the view taken by the authorities below was not correct. Additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not sustainable in law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the taxability of income earned by a society registered under the Indian Societies Act and created by the Government of Assam for infrastructure development. Specifically, the issues are:
Issue-wise detailed analysis: Taxability of interest income on unutilized government grants: The legal framework involves provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly sections governing income computation and exemptions for charitable or infrastructure development entities registered under section 12A. The society in question had received grants-in-aid from the Government of Assam, which were intended for specific infrastructure projects. The society earned interest income by temporarily investing unutilized grant funds in fixed deposits and liquid mutual funds. The Assessing Officer treated this interest income as revenue receipt and taxable income, rejecting the society's claim that such income retained the character of the corpus or specific funds and was incidental to the society's objectives. The society contended that the interest income should be exempt, as it was incidental to the corpus and used to achieve the society's objectives, invoking principles of consistency and real income theory. The Tribunal noted that in subsequent assessment years (AY 2017-18 and AY 2020-21), the Assessing Officer accepted the society's claim of exemption for similar interest income, with no additions made. The Department did not provide any distinguishing facts to justify a different treatment for the assessment year in question. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992), which, while clarifying that res judicata does not strictly apply to income tax proceedings, emphasized that it is inappropriate to change the tax position in subsequent years when a fundamental aspect has been consistently accepted and not challenged. Applying this principle, the Tribunal concluded that the interest income earned on unutilized government grants temporarily parked in financial instruments does not constitute taxable income. The income is incidental and retains the character of the corpus, intended for the society's objectives. Taxability of short-term capital gains from mutual fund switches: The Assessing Officer added short-term capital gains of Rs. 2,00,58,863/- arising from switching between mutual fund schemes to the taxable income. The society argued that these gains arose from mere credit investment of corpus funds and should not be independently taxable, especially given the consistent acceptance of this treatment in subsequent years. The Tribunal observed that the gains were incidental to the management of the corpus funds and that the society had subsequently transferred the amount to the Government of Assam, reinforcing the non-taxable nature of such gains. The absence of any material distinction between the years further supported the non-taxability. The Tribunal held that the short-term capital gains arising from switching between mutual fund schemes related to the corpus funds are not taxable independently. Principle of consistency and binding nature of prior assessments: The Tribunal emphasized the settled legal principle that the violation of the principle of consistency is not sustainable in law. It held that two different views cannot be taken on the same issue when the material facts are identical and no discrepancies are pointed out. Though the doctrine of res judicata does not strictly apply to income tax proceedings, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's guidance that it is inappropriate to allow a change in position in a subsequent year when a fundamental aspect has been accepted and not challenged in earlier years. The Department's concession of the factual position in subsequent years without distinguishing facts further strengthened the application of consistency. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that each assessment year is an independent unit capable of independent findings, noting that this cannot justify inconsistent treatment on identical facts. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards interest income and short-term capital gains were not sustainable either in law or on facts. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete these additions. Significant holdings and core principles established: "It is settled law that the violation of principle of consistency is not sustainable in law." "Though the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to Income Tax proceedings, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year, where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order for the said years." The Tribunal held that interest income earned on unutilized government grants temporarily invested does not constitute taxable income in the hands of the society when the corpus nature of funds is preserved and the income is incidental to the society's objectives. Short-term capital gains arising from switching between mutual fund schemes related to corpus funds are not taxable independently, particularly when accepted consistently in subsequent years. The principle of consistency in tax treatment must be respected, and prior accepted positions in subsequent years cannot be arbitrarily overturned without material distinction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions made on account of interest income and short-term capital gains.
|
