Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 69 - ITAT ALLAHABADChargeability to income-tax of interest income which was earned by assessee from deposits placed with the Banks - eligibility to relief to the assessee by following decision of tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years - principles of resjudicata - assessee had claimed that it was setting up power project during the year under consideration and commercial production has not started till the end of ay, and hence the said interest income earned by assessee is to be set off against the interest paid by the assessee on term loan availed by it for setting up of power generation plant, which will go on to reduce cost of project - AO disallowed the said setting off of the interest income by referring to provisions of Section 5 - HELD THAT:- As observed that every assessment year is a separate assessment year and principles of resjudicata are not strictly applicable, but we are also fully aware that consistency has to be followed. The reference is made to the decision of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT]. As observed in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that even during the period when commercial production has not started but the funds were invested in the bank FDR etc. the interest income has to be brought to income-tax under provisions of Section 56 under the head ‘Income from other sources’, and setoff cannot be allowed against interest on term loans secured by tax-payer from Financial Institutions which would be capitalized after the commencement of commercial production. The facts for the earlier years viz. ay’s: 2009-10 and 2010-11 were clearly peculiar as it was at the behest of bank the deposits were created, which were automatically reversed by the bank, when the assessee required the funds towards implementation of the project. Thus, finding was given by tribunal that there was no surplus funds held by assessee and interest income was inextricably linked with the construction and acquisition activities in the regular course of the assessee activities. In the impugned assessment year 2013-14 which is in consideration before us, it is observed that there was a further infusion of capital in equal proportion by both the promoters and the assessee has earned interest income on deposits made with the bank which was sought to be set off by assessee against interest paid to bank on term loans availed for setting up of the project. But here during the impugned assessment year’s, there are no such further findings as were there in ays:2009-10 and 2010-11 as to whether the surplus funds were deployed by assessee with deposit with banks on which interest income was received or short term deposits were created at the behest of the bank which were automatically credited by bank when the assessee required the funds for the project execution, and the ld. CIT(A) has merely followed the appellate order passed by the tribunal for earlier ay’s: 2009-10 and 2010-11 . The power of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with the power of the Assessing Officer, and the ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to make enquiries to give finding that facts as are prevalent in the current year are similar/para materia to the facts of the earlier year and hence the appellate order passed by tribunal for earlier year is to be followed. Since there is no clear finding given by the ld. CIT(A) in the fitness of thing it will be appropriate that this issue is restore to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the above issue afresh after considering the facts for impugned assessment year vis-àvis facts prevalent in ay: 2009-10 and 2010-11, and also after considering the decision of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. [1997 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT]and Sangam Power Generation Company Limited [2017 (9) TMI 737 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Pryagraj Power Generation Company Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 824 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. In the interest of justice and fairness to both the rival parties, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and denovo determination of the issues on merits in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law and evidences/explanations filed by assessee in support of its contentions shall be admitted by ld. CIT(A) and adjudicated on merits in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not commented on the merits of the issue in appeal. Characterization of income - forfeiture of earnest money from the contractors, forfeited and appropriated by the assessee - constituted business income or income from other sources or capital receipt and as such was not liable to be taxed - commercial production has not yet started of the project - HELD THAT:- The finding by ld. Assessing Officer/ld. CIT(A) that earnest money(EMD) given by contractors was forfeited by assessee on account of non completion of work and other miscellaneous recoveries were made from contractors. It is undisputed that power plant project of the assessee was under implementation during the impugned ay: 2013-14 and commercial production has not yet started during the impugned assessment year. In this case, it is undisputed contractors has given earnest money (EMD) to the assessee and since they could not complete the work in time the assessee has forfeited the amount, and also there were miscellaneous recoveries from contractors. The commercial operations of the power plant has not yet commenced during the impugned ay and the project was under implementation. Thus, the receipts are inextricably linked to the project and the ratio of case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1998 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held that if the receipt are inextricably linked to the project under implementation then the same are be treated as capital receipt which will go on to reduce cost of project, shall be applicable and hence we are of the view that these are capital receipt and they cannot be brought to tax and shall go on to reduce the cost of the project - Decided in favour of assessee.
|