2018 (1) TMI 668 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds State Agent Status, Rejects Revenue Appeal on Business Income Assessment

The Tribunal affirmed the assessee's status as an agent of the State Government of Maharashtra, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. Emphasizing the consistent ... Assessment of income of the assessee - Principal-Agent- Relationship exists between the assessee and the government of Maharashtra - the assessee is an agent of the State Government of Maharashtra - whether the income generated and earned by the principle i.e. the State Government of Maharashtra is liable to be taxed in the hands of the CIDCO as its business income? - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case [2012 (9) TMI 331 - ITAT MUMBAI] the assessee to be the “agent” of the State Government of Maharashtra, read with the entire overwhelming documents, suggesting that there is no income to the assessee as such, and whatever is, generated, it gets deposited in the Consolidated Fund of the State. We also cannot ignore the fact that the department has been assessing the assessee as a State Government undertaking for the last three years, therefore, even this cannot be called as an afterthought and applying the ‘rule of consistency’, we hold that the department cannot be allowed to take a distinctive approach in the current year The revenue authorities were thus, clearly in error, in assessing the business income in the hands of the assessee at ₹ 63,786.58 lacs. We delete this income, as not belonging to the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Whether the assessee is an agent of the Government of Maharashtra.- Whether the income generated and earned by the State Government of Maharashtra is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as its business income.Analysis:1. Agent of the Government of Maharashtra: The Revenue challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) alleging that the assessee was not proven to be an agent of the Government of Maharashtra. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's preceding Assessment Year held that the assessee is indeed an agent of the State Government of Maharashtra. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to this decision, emphasizing that the assessee does not engage in independent trade activities, and all income is deposited in the State's consolidated fund. The Revenue accepted the Coordinate Bench's decision but supported the Assessing Officer's order.2. Legal Interpretation: The Coordinate Bench analyzed Article 289 of the Constitution, focusing on clauses (2) and (3) which exempt State property and income from Union Taxation but allow for taxation on trade or business activities carried out by or on behalf of the State. The Tribunal emphasized that for taxation to apply, there must be a commercial motive and profit involved. The Tribunal cited precedents and legal provisions to establish that the assessee, acting on behalf of the State Government, does not engage in trade activities independently but functions as an arm of the State.3. Documentary Evidence: The Tribunal highlighted the Resolution dated 18th March, 1970, which clearly stated the assessee's role as an agent of the Government for development projects. Financial dealings were required to be authorized by various government entities, indicating the close supervision and control by the State Government over the assessee's activities. The Tribunal also noted that upon project completion, authority was transferred back to the State, further solidifying the assessee's status as an agent.4. Decision and Ruling: Relying on the Coordinate Bench's decision and considering the overwhelming evidence and legal framework, the Tribunal affirmed the Ld.CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds, emphasizing the consistent treatment of the assessee as a State Government undertaking in previous assessments. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the business income assessed by the Revenue did not belong to the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's status as an agent of the State Government of Maharashtra and rejected the Revenue's appeal, highlighting the legal and constitutional provisions governing the taxation of State property and income.