2013 (10) TMI 1423 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds assessee's right to set off loss due to license fee forfeiture.

PREETAM SINGH LUTHRA AND STATE BANK OF INDORE YASHWANT NIWAS ROAD INDORE, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH Versus ACIT, RANGE 5 GOVT. INDORE, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the denial of set off of loss on account of forfeiture of license fee. The Tribunal held that the ... Set off the loss on account of forfeiture of licence fee against income - Held that:- Since the assessee was allotted the licence by the Excise Department, which was later on transfer to one Shankar Lal Patidar but the said licence was cancelled by the Excise Department and the amount of licence fees deposited by the petitioner was forfeited by the Excise Department, the assessee is entitled to set off on account of such forfeiture. Issues:1. Interpretation of Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding set off of loss on account of forfeiture of license fee.2. Validity of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT).3. Application of relevant case law in determining the entitlement to set off on account of forfeiture.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the ITA regarding the denial of set off of loss on account of forfeiture of license fee. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added the forfeited amount as unexplained investment. However, the CIT (Appeals) held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable due to the later confiscation of the deposited amount by the Collector, Mandsaur. The CIT (Appeals) directed the deletion of the entire addition based on this reasoning.2. The Revenue, dissatisfied with the CIT (Appeals) order, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relying on a judgment of the Madras High Court, held that the assessee was entitled to set off the amount forfeited by the Excise Department. The Tribunal found no infirmity in its view and concluded that no question of law arose in the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.3. The judgment highlighted the application of relevant case law, specifically citing the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chensing Ventures [2007] 291 ITR 258 (Mad). The Tribunal's decision was based on the cancellation of the license by the Excise Department and the subsequent forfeiture of the license fees deposited by the assessee. The Tribunal's reliance on the legal principle established in the cited case law supported the assessee's entitlement to set off the forfeited amount, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, the validity of the orders passed by the authorities, and the application of relevant case law in determining the entitlement to set off on account of forfeiture.