9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 6,27,944 being the difference in price of levy sugar allowed to be charged by the assessee under an interim order had accrued to the assessee as its income and hence liable to tax. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Accrual of Income: The primary issue is whether the difference in price of levy sugar, allowed to be charged by the assessee under an interim order, had accrued to the assessee as its income and was thus liable to tax. The assessee, a co-operative society, derived income from the manufacture and sale of sugar. The Government of India fixed the price of levy sugar at Rs. 151.36 per quintal, which the assessee challenged in the High Court. The High Court permitted the assessee to sell levy sugar at Rs. 202.23 per quintal, on the condition that the difference of Rs. 50.87 per quintal be deposited pending the writ petition's disposal. The amount of Rs. 6,27,944 was credited by the assessee in its suspense account. The Income-tax Officer considered this amount as part of the sale price and thus a trading receipt, treating it as income for the assessment year 1975-76. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the amount did not form part of the sale proceeds and was credited as trust money in the suspense account, thus not accruing as income to the assessee. 2. Legal Precedents and Comparisons: The court referred to several judgments to determine whether the amount accrued as income. In CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524, the Supreme Court held that the right to receive the amount was not absolute, and thus it was not income accruing to the assessee during the relevant year. This principle was applied to the present case, indicating that the amount in dispute did not accrue as income to the assessee. Similarly, in CIT v. Chodavaram Co-operative Sugars Ltd. [1987] 163 ITR 420, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an amount collected under a conditional order, pending a writ petition, did not partake the nature of a trading receipt and thus was not taxable. This judgment was followed in CIT v. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. [1990] 183 ITR 113 by the Karnataka High Court, which held that the collection made under interim court orders was inchoate and did not accrue as income until the final determination of the dispute. The Bombay High Court in CIT v. Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 195 ITR 778 also supported this view, holding that the collection made under interim court orders was not income accruing to the assessee until the dispute's finalisation. 3. Distinguishing Cases: The court distinguished the present case from Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC) and U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation v. CIT (Addl.) [1993] 201 ITR 707 (SC), where amounts collected were treated as trading receipts. These cases involved different facts where the amounts collected were not under dispute or conditional orders. Conclusion: The court concluded that the difference in price of levy sugar realised by the assessee under the High Court's interim orders did not accrue as income for the relevant assessment year 1975-76. The amount was hedged by conditions and the assessee did not acquire an absolute right to it, being liable to refund it if the writ petition was dismissed. Therefore, the question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
|
