TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect to delete the addition of Rs. 4,32,685 holding that the Revenue has failed to prove that these deposits were in the nature of revenue receipts - - - - - Dated:- 24-3-2005 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., PRAKASH KRISHNA. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for opinion to this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was legally correct to delete the addition of Rs. 4,32,685 holding that the Revenue has failed to prove that these deposits were in the nature of revenue receipts?" The present reference relates to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 4,32,685 in the total income of the respondent-assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who had called for a report vide order dated June 26, 1986, and pursuant thereto the Assessing Officer submitted his report dated November 12, 1986. The Income-tax Officer has mentioned in the report that no shares had been allotted till November 10, 1986, and hence these non-refundable deposits were rightly taken as the income of the respondent-assessee. 'The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, came to the conclusion that the amounts realised by the respondent-assessee at the instance of the directions of the Government could not constitute income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities including the Tribunal, it is absolutely clear that the amount of Rs. 7.50 per tonne of sugarcane, collected by the respondent-assessee from its member-cane growers, was towards deposit in terms of clauses 41 to 44 of the bye-laws and was to be adjusted on conversion into shares. The excess amount was to be refunded. Thus, it was a clear case of collection of amount towards issuance of shares in future and cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as trading receipts. The apex court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 270 ITR 1, in somewhat similar circumstances has held that the deposits taken from members do not partake of the nature of trading receipts. Respectfully following the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
