TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11-2016 - S/SHRI B P JAIN, AM GEORGE GEORGE K, JM Assessee By Sh P M Veeramani Revenue By Sh A Dhanaraj, Sr DR ORDER PER BENCH: These four appeals, at the instance of the revenue, are directed against separate orders of the CIT(A) pertaining to different assessee s. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. 2 The revenue has taken different grounds for all these appeals; however, the solitary issue that arises for our consideration, relates to the issue of taxability of freezer deposits received by the assessee from its vendors. Since identical issue is raised in these appeals, these were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order. 3 First we shall take up for adjudication the appeal in ITA No.199/Coch/2016. ITA No 199/Coch/2016 3.1 Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is in the business of manufacturing and marketing of ice creams and other frozen foods. For the assessment year 2011-12, the return of income was filed on 15.10.2011 declaring the total income at nil as the assessee incurred loss of ₹ 9,37,786/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dated 6.3.2014. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n CIT Vs. T.V. Sunderam Iyengar and Sons (1996) 222 ITR 344(SC), the amount becomes taxable. The relevant portion of the judgment of the apex court is reproduced here. . If an amount is received in the course of a trading transaction, even though it is not taxable in the year of receipt as being of revenue character, the amount changes its character when the amount becomes assessee's own money because of limitation or by any statutory or contractual right. When such a thing happens common sense demands that the amount should be treated as the income of the assessee. The same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Slid Containers Ltd Vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 417(Bom). The ratio of these decisions applies perfectly to the instant case. 1.4 In this connection it has to be mentioned that 'income' has been given an inclusive definition in section 2(24). The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Karthikeyan (1993) 201 ITR 866 (SC) has held that the purpose of the inclusive definition is not to limit the meaning but to widen its net and several clauses therein are not exhaustive of the meaning of income; even if a receipt did not fall within the ambit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld DR relied on the grounds raised in the appeal memo. On the other hand, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case, cited supra. The ld Counsel also submitted that the said issue is pending for adjudication before the Hon ble Kerala High Court and no decision has been taken by the Hon ble Court. 3.4 We have heard the rival parties and perused the material on record. In assessee s own case, the division bench of the Tribunal have decided the matter in favour of the assessee, by following the earlier orders of the Tribunal. The relevant findings of the Tribunal in assessee s own case read as follows: 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and relevant material on record. The issue arises is whether the deposits in respect of the freezer has to be considered as income of the assessee or not. As rightly submitted by the Ld. AR of the assessee that this issue was considered by the Tribunal in one of the assessees for the earlier assessment year and found that such deposits cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is a settled law. In other words, there must be a debt owned to the assessee and until this is created in favour of the assessee as a debt due to the assessee, it cannot be said as income accrued. Hence, the decision relied by the Jr. D.R. in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons cited supra, is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, assessee itself admitted this as income as per the book entries. Hence, it is distinguishable. The decision relied by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Realest Builders and Services Ltd. 307 ITR 202 (SC) in addition to the following cases (a) Siddheswar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT Others 270 ITR 1 (SC); (b) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 202 ITR 492 (Cal). (c) Sugauli Sugar Works (Impugned) Ltd. 236 ITR 518 (SC); 5 I.T.A. Nos. 73-79/Coch/2014 (d) Star India P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT 311 ITR (ST) 235 (Mumbai). (e) Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath 171 ITR 417 (All.); (f) Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. 161 ITR 524 (SC); (g) Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC); (h) Mantra Tanta Yantra Vigyan vs. CIT 300 ITR 140 (Raj.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
