2016 (5) TMI 921 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT rules in favor of assessee, deems interest tax levy inapplicable for hire purchase agreements

The ITAT determined that the transactions were hire purchase agreements, with the assessee as the owner of the goods hired to customers. The ITAT found ... Hire purchase transaction - financing transaction - interest tax - Interest Tax Act - substance over form - tests in Sundaram Finance Ltd. - CBDT Circular No. 760Hire purchase transaction - financing transaction - substance over form - tests in Sundaram Finance Ltd. - CBDT Circular No. 760 - Interest Tax Act - Whether the transactions for A.Y. 1997-98 and A.Y. 1998-99 were hire purchase transactions and thus not chargeable to interest tax, or were in substance financing transactions chargeable to interest tax. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal applied the principles in CBDT Circular No. 760 and the tests laid down in Sundaram Finance Ltd. to determine the real nature of the transactions. The hire-purchase agreements disclosed the assessee as owner, provided for specified hire charges, conferred an option to purchase only upon payment of all instalments, and contained express clauses treating the hirer as trustee/bailee and preserving the owners' title. Registration certificates were consistent with hire-purchase arrangements (hirers shown as owners subject to the hire-purchase agreement). No purchase bills were produced to substantiate Revenue's contention that hirers were the real purchasers and that transactions were finance in nature. An oral admission by the assessee's representative as to purchase by hirers was held insufficient to overcome the written agreements; the Court may go behind form but, on the facts, the documents and surrounding circumstances showed bona fide hire-purchase transactions. Applying the Sundaram tests and Circular guidance, the transactions were found to be hire-purchase in substance and not loans secured by goods; accordingly the receipts characterised as hire charges did not attract tax under the Interest Tax Act. [Paras 7, 8, 9]Transactions for A.Y. 1997-98 and A.Y. 1998-99 held to be hire purchase transactions; levy of interest tax deleted.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the assessee's hire-purchase transactions for A.Y. 1997-98 and A.Y. 1998-99 are not amenable to interest tax under the Interest Tax Act, and the levies confirmed below are set aside. Issues Involved:1. Whether the assessee is liable to pay interest tax under the Interest Tax Act.2. Whether the transactions entered into by the assessee are in the nature of hire purchase transactions or financing transactions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Liability to Pay Interest Tax:The primary issue is whether the assessee is liable to pay interest tax as per the Interest Tax Act. The assessee's appeals were against the common order of CIT(A)-II, Agra, which confirmed the levy of interest tax amounting to Rs. 1,29,912/- and Rs. 2,01,129/- for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively. The original assessment orders held that the assessee company was engaged in financing motor vehicles and was liable to pay tax on the interest income earned during the year. The assessee's claim was that the interest received was part of hire charges, and thus, not subject to interest tax.2. Nature of Transactions: Hire Purchase vs. Financing:The key determination was whether the transactions were hire purchase transactions or financing transactions. The AO, after re-examining the matter, concluded that the assessee was engaged in financing business only, advancing loans on interest, and thus, the transactions could not be termed as hire purchase. The AO noted that the assessee obtained blank signed documents from customers and executed various documents to safeguard the amount given as advance.The CIT(A), upon reconsideration, upheld the AO's order, stating that the transactions were in the form of financing transactions. The CIT(A) referred to the Supreme Court decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, which held that the nature of transactions should be determined by their substance and intention, rather than their form.The ITAT examined the hire purchase agreements and found that the motor vehicles given on hire were stated to be the sole property of the assessee. The agreements provided that the hirer would pay specified hire charges and had the option to purchase the vehicle upon full payment. The ITAT noted that the hire purchase agreements indicated the assessee as the owner of the vehicles, and the hirers held the vehicles as trustees and bailees of the assessee.The ITAT also considered the CBDT Circular No. 760, which provided guidelines to distinguish between hire purchase and financing transactions. The circular emphasized examining the terms of the agreement, the nature of the arrangement, and the intention of the parties.Conclusion:The ITAT concluded that the transactions entered into by the assessee constituted hire purchase transactions, where the assessee was the owner of the goods hired to the customers. The registration certificates of the vehicles supported this view, showing the hirers as owners under hire purchase agreements with the assessee. The ITAT found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the hirers were the owners of the vehicles, as there were no purchase bills to establish this claim.Therefore, the ITAT held that the transactions were hire purchase transactions and not amenable to interest tax. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed, deleting the levy of interest tax amounting to Rs. 1,29,912/- and Rs. 2,01,129/- for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively.Order Pronounced in the Open Court:The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the levy of interest tax was deleted.