Remission of unsecured loans from bodies corporate treated as taxable income under section 28(iv) read with section 2(24)

ITAT dismissed the appeal regarding remission of unsecured loans from bodies corporate being treated as income under section 28(iv) read with section 2(24). The tribunal held that the assessee company was engaged in money lending business, using loans for day-to-day operations without purchasing capital assets. Following Solid Containers Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT and T.V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Ltd., the tribunal ruled that waiver of business loans constitutes taxable income as the amount is retained in business operations, transforming non-income into taxable income.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,00,75,000/- on account of alleged remission of liability in respect of unsecured loans.
2. Legitimacy of assessment on a defunct company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,00,75,000/- on account of alleged remission of liability in respect of unsecured loans:

The assessees challenged the addition of Rs. 1,00,75,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that it represented a remission of liability for unsecured loans from corporate bodies, which was treated as income under Section 28(iv) read with Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO observed that the unsecured loans were waived off by other companies, and the amount was credited to the capital reserve in the balance sheet of the assessee. The AO argued that the waiver of loans should be treated as business income.

The assessees contended that the amount was never claimed as an admissible deduction and hence could not be taxed under Section 41(1). They argued that the loans were capital receipts and not trading receipts, and therefore, the remission of liability should not be considered as income. They relied on various judicial decisions to support their claim that capital receipts do not acquire the character of revenue receipts even if they remain with an assessee for a long period.

The Tribunal, however, upheld the AO's decision, stating that the loans were taken and used in the course of business operations, and therefore, the remission of liability should be considered as income. The Tribunal referred to the inclusive definition of "income" under Section 2(24) and the wide amplitude of the term as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Emil Webber vs. CIT. The Tribunal also noted that the loans were utilized for business purposes and not for acquiring capital assets, distinguishing the case from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT and other similar cases.

2. Legitimacy of assessment on a defunct company:

The assessees argued that no assessment could be made as the companies had become defunct and their names were struck off from the record under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. They relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of ITAT in Impsat (P) Ltd. vs. ITO and the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Vived Marketing Servicing Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that there is a difference between a dissolved company and a defunct company. In the case of a defunct company, the identity of the company still exists, and therefore, legally, an assessment can be made. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s view that the argument of the appellant does not have merit and thus rejected it.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the addition of Rs. 1,00,75,000/- as income under Section 28(iv) read with Section 2(24) and confirming the legitimacy of assessment on the defunct companies. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO.

---