- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, referred a question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to this court. The assessee, a public limited company, established a factory for manufacture of electro-graphites and commenced production on May 1, 1977. In the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1978-79 the assessee derived interest income totalling Rs. 50,116 (interest on fixed deposits and interest on late payment of call money). The Income-tax Officer treated this amount as taxable. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who held that the accounting period under consideration ran only from January 1, 1977 to April 30, 1977 and that interest for those four months before commencement of production was not taxable. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal. The Revenue obtained a reference from the Tribunal to this court. The court reframed the Tribunal's question to whether interest income of Rs. 13,321 (limited to January 1–April 30, 1977) was taxable as the assessee's income.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income of Rs. 13,321 was not taxable as the assessee's income?
Arguments of the Parties
Revenue's Arguments
- Interest earned prior to commencement of business is taxable as income from other sources.
- Relied on Madhya Pradesh State Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 824 (MP) and Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 503 (Ker).
Assessee's Arguments
- Income received during the pre-production period must be set off against interest expenses in accordance with rules of accountancy, rendering it not assessable.
- Relied on Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC), CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1988] 170 ITR 522 (Patna) and CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 663 (AP).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Madhya Pradesh State Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 824 (MP) | Support for the proposition that interest earned prior to commencement of business is taxable as income from other sources. | Relied on by Revenue; court acknowledged the reliance but did not adopt this as decisive without considering factual relation between income and expenditure. |
| Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 503 (Ker) | Support for the proposition that pre-commencement interest is taxable as income from other sources. | Relied on by Revenue; court did not treat it as determinative given the facts before it. |
| Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC) | Consideration whether interest paid before commencement of production on borrowed amounts forms part of "actual cost" of assets. | Court held this case concerned capitalization of interest paid on borrowings and does not justify treating unrelated miscellaneous interest receipts as non-taxable by adjustment to capital cost. |
| CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1988] 170 ITR 522 (Patna) | Authority relied on by assessee for setting off pre-production receipts against related interest expenses. | Court found this decision distinguishable on facts because the Tribunal made no finding that the interest receipts were directly related to particular expenditure. |
| CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 663 (AP) | Authority relied on by assessee for the principle of setting off pre-production receipts against related costs. | Court found this decision distinguishable on facts for the same reason as Bokaro — no finding of direct relation between receipts and expenditure. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined whether the interest receipts were directly related to any particular expenditure so as to permit set-off under rules of accountancy. It noted that the Tribunal made no finding that the assessee had incurred interest expenses during the construction period or that the interest on fixed deposits and on late payment of call money was related to a particular item of expenditure. While the rules of accountancy permit set-off of miscellaneous income against directly related expenditure, such an adjustment requires a factual finding of direct relation. The court distinguished the assessee's authorities (Bokaro Steel and Nagarjuna Steels) on the ground that those cases involved facts showing a direct relation, which was absent here. It further explained that Challapalli Sugars concerned capitalization of interest paid on borrowings and does not stand for a broader proposition that unrelated interest receipts during construction must be adjusted against capital cost. On these bases the court concluded the Tribunal was not justified in holding the interest income non-taxable absent a finding of direct relation to expenditure.
Holding and Implications
Answer to the referred question: In the negative — against the assessee.
Direct effect: The court held that, in the absence of any finding that the interest receipts were directly related to particular expenditure, the Tribunal was not justified in holding the interest income (Rs. 13,321 for the period Jan 1–Apr 30, 1977) to be non-taxable. Parties shall bear their own costs of the reference.
No broader implications or declaration of a new principle of law were made beyond the application to the facts of this case.
1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench. Indore, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest of Rs. 50,116 (rounded off to Rs. 50,120), was not taxable as the assessee's income ?"
2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : The assessee is a public limited company. The assessee established a factory for the manufacture and production of electro-graphites and the production commenced on May 1, 1977. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee derived income of Rs. 50,116 as interest on fixed deposits and interest on late payment of call money. The Income-tax Officer held that this amount was taxable as the assessee's income. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the period of accounting year under consideration was only from January 1, 1977, to April 30, 1977, and interest income for these four months before the commencement of production was not taxable, The Revenue thereupon preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal dismissed that appeal. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has found that interest income earned prior to January 1, 1977, had already been considered in the preceding account year and that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had erred in assessing the income for the period from May 1, 1977, to December 31, 1977. This finding was not assailed before the Tribunal and hence the Tribunal was only required to consider the question as to whether the interest income from January 1, 1977, to April 30, 1977, was taxable as the assessee's income. The amount of Rs. 50,116 referred to in the question framed by the Tribunal included interest income from May 1977 to December 1977 though that amount had to be excluded from consideration. We, therefore, reframe the question as follows :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income of Rs. 13,321 was not taxable as the, assessee's income ?"
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that interest earned by a person prior to the commencement of business would be taxable as income from other sources and that the Tribunal erred in holding that such income was not taxable. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Madhya Pradesh State Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 824 (MP) and Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 503 (Ker). In reply, learned counsel for the assessee contended that the income received by the assessee during the pre-production period has to be set off against interest expenses as required by the rules of accountancy and the Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the interest income was not assessable to tax. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC), CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1988] 170 ITR 522 (Patna) and CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 663 (AP).
5. In the instant case, the Tribunal has not found that the assessee had incurred interest expenses during the construction period and hence interest income earned during the construction period, was to be set off against interest expenses incurred during the period in question. It is true that the rules of accountancy require that where a particular item of miscellaneous income can be directly related to a particular item of expenditure, then it should be set off against the expenditure and the net amount of expenditure should be treated in an appropriate manner depending upon its nature in accordance with the principles of accountancy. In the instant case, however, the Tribunal has not found that the income earned by the assessee as interest on fixed deposit and on late payment of call money, is related to a particular item of expenditure. The decisions in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1988] 170 ITR 522 (Patna) and CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 663 (AP) are, therefore, distinguishable on facts. In Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC), the question for consideration was whether interest paid before the commencement of production on amounts borrowed by the assessee for the acquisition and installation of plant and machinery, formed part of the "actual cost" of the assets. On the basis of that decision, it cannot be laid down, as held by the Tribunal, that even though a particular item of miscellaneous income is not found to be directly related to a particular item of expenditure, interest received by investing funds during the construction period should be adjusted against capital cost and cannot be taxed as income from other sources. In our opinion, in the absence of any finding that interest on fixed deposits and interest on late payment of call money was directly related to a particular item of expenditure, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the interest income received by the assessee on fixed deposits and on late payment of call money was not taxable as the assessee's income.
6. For all these reasons, our answer to the question refrained by us is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
Alert