1948 (3) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Remitted amount not taxable income under Indian Income-tax Act

MOHSIN REHMAN PENKAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY

The Court ruled that the remitted amount by the creditor was not considered taxable income under the Indian Income-tax Act. The judgment emphasized that ... - Issues:1. Whether the amount remitted by the creditor is considered income and liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax ActRs.Analysis:The judgment concerns an application where the assessee sought a reference to the High Court regarding taxation issues arising from the Tribunal's order. The assessee, engaged in various businesses, had dealings with a creditor and mortgaged properties for a debt. The creditor remitted a balance amount, leading to a tax dispute. The Income-tax Officer taxed the remitted amount, which was contested by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and later upheld by the Tribunal. The core issue was whether the remitted amount was taxable income under the Income-tax Act.The Court, in its judgment, emphasized the assessee's business activities and financial transactions with the creditor. The assessee maintained accounts on an accrual basis and claimed deductions for interest payable, which were allowed by the department. The creditor remitted a balance amount, leading to the tax dispute. The Advocate-General argued that the discharge of liability should be treated as income for taxation purposes, as per the mercantile system. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that once the department accepts the accrual basis for taxation, the method of discharging liabilities is irrelevant for tax assessment.The Court referred to a similar case decided by the House of Lords, highlighting that the discharge of a liability cannot be considered as income for taxation purposes. The Court emphasized that the department's attempt to challenge previous deductions allowed to the assessee was not valid. The judgment concluded by answering the question in the negative, stating that the remitted amount was not taxable income. The Commissioner was directed to bear the costs of the reference, and the reference was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee.In summary, the judgment clarified the tax treatment of a remitted amount by a creditor, emphasizing that the discharge of a liability does not constitute taxable income under the Indian Income-tax Act when the assessee follows the accrual basis for accounting. The Court upheld the principle that the method of discharging liabilities is not relevant for tax assessment under the mercantile system, and previous deductions allowed to the assessee should not be challenged by the tax authorities.