- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Ignifluid Boilers (I) Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant is an industrial company engaged in the erection and sales of boilers. It entered into a contract with M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills for the erection of boilers, which included a clause that 10% of the contract price would be retained by the principal contractor and paid only after one month, subject to satisfactory performance. The appellant, following the mercantile system of accounting, included this retention amount as income in its tax returns before actual receipt. The Assessing Officer included the 10% retention amount as taxable income on an accrual basis. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this inclusion, a decision later confirmed by the Tribunal in favor of the appellant. The Revenue challenged this decision before the court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was correct in holding that moneys retained by contractors as a percentage of the bills raised are to be treated as income only when actually received, notwithstanding the appellant’s use of the mercantile system of accounting?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., [1962] 46 ITR 144 | Income tax liability arises only on income accrued or received; hypothetical income entries without actual income do not attract tax. | The court applied this principle to hold that since the retention money was not actually received and did not accrue as income, it could not be taxed despite the mercantile accounting system. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the facts that the 10% retention money was not received during the relevant assessment year and was payable only after satisfactory completion of work. It relied on the Income-tax Act’s principle that taxable income must be either accrued or received. The court referred to the Supreme Court precedent in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., which clarified that tax liability cannot be imposed on hypothetical income entries without actual income realization. Applying this, the court concluded that the retention money did not accrue as income during the relevant period, and therefore, the Tribunal and appellate authorities were correct in excluding it from taxable income.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is that retention money not actually received or accrued cannot be taxed even if the mercantile system of accounting is followed. No new precedent was set beyond affirming the application of the established principle that income must be real and not hypothetical for tax purposes.
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.:— This appeal has been filed by formulating the following substantial question of law for our consideration:
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that moneys retained by the contractors, as a percentage of the bills raised to be paid after the contract is completed is to be treated as income only when the moneys are actually received, even though the appellant is following a mercantile system of accounting?”
2. The appellant is the industrial company carrying on the business of erection and sales of boilers.
3. In the returns, the assessee worked out the profit before taxation at Rs. 82,43,982. As per the contract, the assessee entered into a contract with M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills for erection of boilers wherein there is a specific clause that 10 per cent. of the contract price would be retained by the principal contractor and it would be paid after one month subject to the satisfactory performance of the boilers. The Assessing Officer brought into account 10 per cent. of the contract amount, which has been retained by the principal contractor and levied tax on the ground that the assessee was maintaining mercantile system of accounting and in respect of 10 per cent. retention, the bill has been raised on completion of work and brought the same into account on accrual basis. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), deleted that portion of inclusion of amount, which was further confirmed on appeal by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. That order is canvassed before this court.
4. The facts are not disputed. 10 per cent. of the retention money has not been received in respect of the relevant assessment year though the work has been completed. The assessee is entitled to receive the amount only after successful completion of work. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that 10 per cent. retention money retained by the principal contractor accrued to the assessee during the relevant assessment year for consideration.
5. Under the Income-tax Act, the income accrued or received by the assessee alone is taxable. This position is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co., [1962] 46 ITR 144 wherein it has been held as follows (page 148):
“Income-tax is a levy ort income. No doubt, the Income-tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-keeping, an entry is made about a ‘hypothetical income’, which does not materialise. Where income has, in fact, been received and is subsequently given up in such circumstances that it remains the income of the recipient, even though given up, the tax may be payable. Where, however, the income can be said not to have resulted at all, there is obviously neither accrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account.”
6. This is what exactly happened in this case. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal are correct in their view. The order of the Tribunal requires no interference.
7. Accordingly, the tax case (appeal) is dismissed.
Alert