High Court Fumes & Sends Dept’s Top Brass To Jail For “Gross Contempt”

The assessee’s truck loaded with betel nuts was seized by the customs authorities on the suspicion that the assessee was indulging in smuggling. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the seizure which was allowed by the High Court and the customs authorities were directed to unconditionally release the truck immediately. Despite the High Court’s verdict, the customs authorities issued a show-cause notice threatening confiscation. The assessee filed a contempt petition against the department. The department defended its stand and at the same time tendered an unconditional apology. HELD by the High Court:

Though the High Court’s order was communicated to the department directing a release of the truck without any conditions, the department wrongly demanded 100% cash security and 100% Bond for the said release. The act of issuing show cause notice to avoid giving release is in direct confrontation with the judicial order of the Court. The plea raised with respect to investigation and confiscation is “absolutely frivolous and ridiculous” and has been raised to save from punishment of contempt. Also, the act of justifying the action and simultaneously tendering unqualified apology is a “double faced stance” which is against the settled principle of law. The Asst/Dy Commissioner, Customs, being a senior officer, should have known his limits and by crossing those limits, he has committed gross contempt. He is accordingly punished with simple imprisonment of three months & fine of Rs. 2,000. Also, as the act may constitute “corrupt practice”, the CBEC may consider prosecuting him.

Birendra Kumar Singh vs. UOI (Patna High Court)

S. 80IA: In absence of separate books, AO entitled to estimate eligible profits

The assessee manufactured yarn and also sold raw wool, wool waste and textile and knitting cloth. It claimed a deduction of 30% in respect of the profits of the “manufacturing activity”. As the assessee had not maintained accounts for manufacture of yarn actually produced as a part of industrial undertaking, the AO worked out the manufacturing account giving a bifurcation in terms of quantity of raw wool produced. The assessee challenged the preparation of separate trading account by the AO in respect of manufacturing and trading activities. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee’s claim though the Tribunal and High Court upheld the AO’s stand. On appeal by the assessee to the Supreme Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The findings given by ITAT and the High Court are findings of fact. We are not concerned with the interpretation of Section 80IA of the Act. On facts, we find that the assessee ought to have maintained a separate account in respect of raw material which it had sold during the assessment year. If the assessee had maintained a separate account, then, in that event, a clear picture would have emerged which would have indicated the income accrued from the manufacturing activity and the income accrued on the sale of raw material. We do not know the reason why separate accounts were not maintained for the raw material sold and for the income derived from manufacture of yarn.

Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

High Court Seethes With Fury At Dept For “Dirty Games” With Assessees

The assessee, a charitable institution whose income was exempt u/s 11, was granted a certificate of Nil TDS u/s 197 in the earlier years. For FY 2009-10, the assessee’s application for a s. 197 certificate was not processed and so the assessee filed a Writ Petition pursuant to which the Dept. agreed to consider the application and pass an order. The AO thereafter passed an order stating that since the FY 2009-10 had already lapsed, the s. 197 certificate for that FY could not be issued. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the rejection. The department filed an affidavit in which it claimed, for the first time, that the rejection was because there were demands outstanding against the assessee. HELD by the High Court:

The reason given in the affidavit regarding the arrears outstanding against the assessee is not correct because there were in fact no demands due pursuant to the Tribunal’s order. There is inordinate delay and serious laches on the part of the AO in dealing with the assessee’s application & there is no explanation why the application submitted on 22.06.2009 was taken up for the first time for consideration towards the fag end of FY 2009-10 and rejected on a wrong ground of non-payment of outstanding dues. Such action is in contravention of CBDT’s Circular No.F.No.20/23/67 IT(A-I) which states that application filed by charitable trusts for issuance of Nil/low TDS certificates should be expeditiously processed. The rejection is also in violation of the Court’s earlier order where the department did not raise the stand that the s. 197 certificate could not be issued as the FY was over and instead agreed to consider the issue of the certificate. Obviously the department’s action are not bona-fide and does not speak well of its attitude. Mala fides are writ large because new grounds supporting the rejection have been taken in the counter affidavit though such action is not permissible as per Mohinder Singh Gill vs. CEC AIR 1978 SC 851. The Department cannot take advantage of its own inaction and lapses and say that the certificate cannot be issued as the FY is over. Such action would lead to unnecessary complication for the assessee and the parties dealing with it. As held in Dabur India Ltd State of UP AIR 1990 SC 1814, the Govt. cannot be permitted to play “dirty games” with the citizens of the country to coerce them in making payments which the citizens were not legally obliged to make. If any money is due to the Govt., it should take appropriate steps, but it should not take extra legal steps or adopt the course of maneuvering. The Dept. has to be careful in future not to indulge in such avoidable circumstances which create an impression that the intention of the Department is not to help the assessee but to harass them. This matter needs to be inquired into by the concerned CCIT and appropriate action should be initiated against the erring officer.

Management Committee Paradeep Port vs. ITO (Orissa High Court)

S. 145: Excise duty need not be included in closing stock

The assessee valued its closing stock without including excise duty. The AO held that excise duty had to be included in the closing stock though the CIT(A), Tribunal and High Court (267 ITR 600 (Mad)) upheld the assessee’s plea on the basis (following English Electric Co. 243 ITR 512 (Mad)) that the inclusion of excise duty in the valuation of closing stock was permissible only if the liability for that amount in the excise duty account was given a deduction and otherwise it would be anomalous. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The assessee has been following consistently the method of valuation of closing stock which is “cost or market price whichever is lower.” Also, while the AO revalued the closing stock, he did not make any adjustment to the opening stock. Excise duty is on the manufacture of the finished product though it is quantified and collected on the selling price. Valuation of unsold stock at the close of the accounting period is a necessary part of the process of determining the trading results of that period. It cannot be regarded as source of profits. The true purpose of crediting the value of unsold stock is to balance the cost of the goods entered on the other side of the account at the time of the purchase, so that on cancelling out of the entries relating to the same stock from both sides of the account would leave only the transactions in which actual sales in the course of the year has taken place and thereby showing the profit or loss actually realized on the year’s trading. The entry for stock which appears in the trading account is intended to cancel the charge for the goods bought which have remained unsold which should represent the cost of the goods” (Chainrup Sampatram 24 ITR 481 (SC) & Hindustan Zinc Ltd 291 ITR 391 SC) followed.

CIT vs. Dynavision Limited (Supreme Court)

S. 80HH & 80-I do not require maintenance of seperate books

S. 80HH & 80-I do not require maintenance of accounts unit wise and deduction can be claimed on the basis of consolidated accounts. To avoid litigation, the assessee should get the working of unit wise net profits certified by the Chartered Accountant.

CIT vs. Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemical Ltd (Supreme Court)

Lumpsum technical know-how fees are deductible only u/s 35AB & not s. 37(1)

The assessee entered into a “Licence and Technical Assistance Agreement” with an American company pursuant to which the American company agreed to transfer technical know-how to the assessee in consideration of US $2,25,000 to be paid in three installments. The assessee paid the first installment amounting to Rs.17.49 lakhs. Subsequently, disputes arose between the contracting parties and the know-how was not transferred by the American company. The assessee claimed that as the technical know-how was not received, the amount paid was deductible u/s 37(1) and not under s. 35AB. The AO & CIT(A) rejected the claim though the Tribunal upheld it. The High Court reversed the Tribunal. On appeal by the assessee to the Supreme Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

S. 35AB provides for the amortisation of any lump sum consideration for acquiring any know-how for use for the purposes of his business in 6 installments. Though because of certain disputes which arose between the parties, the balance amount was not paid by the assessee to the American company, the word “for” in s. 35AB, which is a preposition in English grammar, has to be emphasised while interpreting s. 35AB. S. 35AB says that the expenditure should have been incurred for the purposes of the business of the assessee. The Technical Assistance Agreement was entered into between the assessee and the American company for acquiring know-how which was, in turn, to be used in the business of the assessee. Once s. 35AB comes into play, then s. 37 of the Act has no application.

Drilcos (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

"Contingent deposits" received from customers is "income"

It is now well settled that in determining whether a receipt is liable to be taxed, the taxing authorities cannot ignore the legal character of the transaction which is the source of the receipt. The taxing authorities are bound to determine the true legal character of the transaction. "Contingent deposits" received from leasing/hire purchase customers with a view to protect from potential sales tax liability, which is credited to turnover, is assessable to income-tax (Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory (1988) 3 SCC 533 distinguished).

Sundaram Finance Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)