9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2025 (7) TMI 1030 - AT - Income TaxTaxable income - amount received on the sale of fly ash - Fly-ash is generated by various thermal power plants producing electricity by burning coal a major environmental hazard similar to the burning of parali in Northern States of India post harvesting - AR argued vehemently that the amount set apart towards Fly-Ash Utilization Reserve Fund constitutes diversion of income by overriding title and thus should be excluded from its total income HELD THAT - We find that the utilization of fly-ash a byproduct generated by coal and lignite-based thermal power plants of the assessee has been subject to strict government regulation under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. Recognizing the environmental hazards associated with improper disposal of fly ash the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) issued a series of binding notifications to control and regulate its usage. Government of India allowed thermal power plants to sell fly ash through the Gazette Notification dated 03.11.2009 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. However the permission to sell fly ash was not an unrestricted commercial right of the power plants-it was a conditional government-created right subject to strict statutory controls. Fly ash disposal and sale were entirely government regulated activities with both the sale and the utilization of proceeds being regulated by the central government. In view of the restrictions placed by the Government we are of the opinion that the assessee never had absolute ownership or control over the receipts from sale of fly-ash. We are therefore of the considered view that in the factual matrix of the instant case there is a statutory mandate which creates an overriding title over Fly Ash Sale proceeds which divest the assessee from the absolute control and discretion over the sale proceeds of the fly-ash and when the legal obligation diverts income from the source itself therefore such income is no longer remains taxable in the hands of the assessee. Decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. 2025 (4) TMI 1462 - DELHI HIGH COURT squarely applies to the facts of the instant case whereby as held that assessee was not free to utilize the sale proceed of fly-ash as the same is required for specified purpose and the sale consideration out of Flyash is not income of the assessee. Thus Revenue garnered through sale of the fly-ash can not be considered as income of the assessee under the normal provisions of Act. We further hold that as the sale proceeds of fly ash and interest thereon has not been debited to the profit and loss account therefore the question of adding back the same by invoking the provisions of clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act does not arise
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in the consolidated appeals pertain to the tax treatment of amounts received by the assessee from the sale of fly ash and the interest earned on the fly ash utilization reserve. Specifically, the issues are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Taxability of Sale Proceeds of Fly Ash under Normal Provisions Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act, 1961 governs the determination of taxable income. The concept of "diversion of income by overriding title" is a well-established principle in tax jurisprudence, whereby income diverted by a statutory obligation to a third party or a specified purpose does not form part of the assessee's taxable income. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 regulate the sale and utilization of fly ash. Judicial precedents relied upon include CIT Vs. Salem Co-Operative Sugar Mills Limited, CIT V New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., DCM Ltd. V. CIT, CIT V. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, and CIT V. M/s Modipon Ltd., which elucidate the principle of diversion of income by overriding title. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the statutory framework regulating fly ash disposal, including the MOEF notifications dated 14.09.1999, 27.08.2003, and notably the 03.11.2009 notification. The 2009 notification explicitly mandates that amounts collected from the sale of fly ash must be kept in a separate account and utilized solely for infrastructure or facilitation activities to achieve 100% fly ash utilization. This regulatory scheme imposes a legal obligation on the assessee, restricting its use and control over the sale proceeds. The Tribunal noted that initially, fly ash was to be provided free of cost, but subsequently, the government permitted sale under strict conditions. The right to sell fly ash is thus a government-created, conditional right subject to statutory controls. Applying the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, the Tribunal held that since the assessee did not have absolute ownership or control over the sale proceeds and was legally bound to use the amounts for specified environmental purposes, these receipts cannot be considered the assessee's income. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on documentary evidence including government notifications, reports submitted by the assessee to the Ministry of Environment, and judicial decisions. The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of the assessee's sister company, which held that sale proceeds of fly ash were not income, was found directly applicable. Application of law to facts: The statutory mandate diverts the income at source, and the proceeds are earmarked for environmental purposes. Therefore, the amounts do not constitute income under section 28 of the Act. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the assessee was free to sell fly ash and thus the receipts were income. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the regulatory restrictions and the conditional nature of the right to sell. The Revenue's reliance on the Supreme Court decisions in Associated Power Co. Limited and SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. was distinguished on the basis that those cases dealt with appropriation of profits or reserves created from net profits, whereas here the sale proceeds were statutory receipts subject to overriding title. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the additions relating to sale proceeds of fly ash under the normal provisions of the Act. Issue 2: Taxability of Interest Earned on Fly Ash Utilization Reserve Relevant legal framework and precedents: Interest income is generally taxable under the Act unless specifically exempted. However, where the principal amount is not income, interest earned on such amounts may also not be taxable. Section 115JB of the Act relates to Minimum Alternate Tax, which includes book profits and certain adjustments. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the fly ash sale proceeds were held not to be income, the interest earned on the fly ash utilization reserve, which is a separate account mandated by statute, also does not form part of taxable income. The Tribunal noted that the interest was not debited to the profit and loss account and hence, under Explanation 1(b) to section 115JB, the addition of such interest to book profits was not warranted. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal considered the audited accounts and notes thereto, which showed the interest credited to the fly ash utilization reserve and not to the profit and loss account. Application of law to facts: Given the statutory obligation and the separate accounting treatment, the interest income is not taxable under normal provisions or under section 115JB. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued for inclusion of interest as income, but the Tribunal rejected this on the basis of the overriding statutory obligation and accounting treatment. Conclusion: The additions of interest earned on the fly ash utilization reserve were deleted. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 115JB and Book Profit Adjustments Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 115JB mandates computation of book profits for levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). Explanation 1(b) requires certain additions to book profit, including amounts credited to profit and loss account but not forming part of income under normal provisions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the fly ash sale proceeds and interest were not credited to the profit and loss account, the provisions of Explanation 1(b) were not attracted. The Tribunal held that the additions under section 115JB were not justified. Application of law to facts: The sale proceeds and interest were accounted for in separate reserves and not as income; hence, no addition was warranted in book profits. Conclusion: The additions under section 115JB were deleted. Issue 4: Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-IA Relevant legal framework: Section 80-IA provides deduction for profits derived from certain infrastructure businesses. Court's reasoning: Since the appeal was allowed on merits regarding taxability of sale proceeds and interest, the question of eligibility for deduction under section 80-IA became infructuous and was dismissed. Issue 5: Doctrine of Consistency and Natural Justice The assessee contended that the AO and CIT(A) erred in ignoring the doctrine of consistency and in confirming additions without appropriate appreciation of facts, relying on assumptions and conjecture. The Tribunal found that the statutory framework and judicial precedents clearly supported the assessee's position and that the Revenue's approach lacked proper application of legal principles. The doctrine of consistency was implicitly upheld as the facts remained unchanged over the years and the same treatment was warranted. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held:
Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
