2025 (4) TMI 1706 - AT - Income Tax

Letter-admitted additional grounds improper but not reopenable; fertilizer subsidies treated as capital receipts excluded from book profit under s.115JB

DCIT, Central Circle-3 (2), Mumbai Versus Aarti Industries Limited

ITAT MUMBAI held that admitting additional grounds raised by letter was improper per the SC precedent, but where an earlier Bench admitted the grounds and ... Power of the Tribunal to admit additional claims - deduction u/s 80IA - Tribunal admitting additional grounds raised through a letter - HELD THAT:- Tribunal was not right in admitting additional grounds raised through a letter. As contended that the assessee could have raised the new claims only through revised return of income, as per the decision rendered in the case of Goetze India Ltd [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT]. We noticed earlier that both the additional grounds have been admitted by the earlier Bench of the Tribunal and the AO himself has allowed the claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised as an additional ground. Hence, the revenue was not right in law in contesting the decision of the earlier bench in the current proceedings, that too, after giving effect to the earlier order of the Tribunal. In any case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has stated in the order of Goetze India Ltd that the said order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claims. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue. Accordingly, we reject them. Non-taxability of fertilizer subsidy received by the assessee claiming the same as capital in nature - We do not find any merit in the contentions of the Revenue. The well settled proposition is that any amendment imposing liability upon the assessee shall always be prospective and it cannot be retrospective. Further, the above said amendment has been specifically held to be operative w.e.f. 01-04-2016. Hence the above said amendment made in sec.2(24) of the Act cannot be applied to the years prior AY.2016-17. Accordingly, we reject this ground also. Taxability of fertilizer subsidy received - We notice that the CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Shree Pushkar Chemicals [2021 (8) TMI 982 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein as held that fertilizer subsidy received under NBS Scheme is to be treated as capital in nature. Excluding the fertilizer subsidy for computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act - We notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd [2017 (1) TMI 853 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and also Alok Industries Ltd [2018 (5) TMI 2008 - ITAT MUMBAI] and held that the capital receipts should not be included for the purpose of computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. Since CIT(A) has followed the binding decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd [2017 (1) TMI 853 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by him on this issue. Nature of receipt - excluding the incentives received under Status Holder Incentive Scrips (SHIS) and fertilizer subsidy received under NBS Scheme, treating both of them as capital receipts - Revenue is placing reliance on the amendment made to the definition of income by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-04-2016. While adjudicating the appeal of the assessee for AY. 2011-12, in an earlier paragraph, we have held that the above said amendment cannot be applied retrospectively for the assessment years prior to AYs. 2016-17. Accordingly, we reject this ground of the Revenue in all the three years. Fertilizer subsidy - We have upheld the decision of CIT(A) in treating it as capital receipt in AY. 2011-12, since the CIT(A) has held so by following the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Shree Pushkar Chemicals [2021 (8) TMI 982 - ITAT MUMBAI] Following the decision rendered by us in AY. 2011- 12, we uphold the decision rendered by the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue in all these three years. MAT computation - treatment to both the subsidies while computing book profit u/s. 115JB - The decision rendered by us on an identical issue in AY. 2011-12 as followed the decision rendered in the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd [2017 (1) TMI 853 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and held that the capital receipts should not be included while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether additional grounds raised by an assessee through a letter (rather than by revised return) can be admitted by the Tribunal and acted upon by the assessing officer. 2. Whether an amendment to the statutory inclusive definition of 'income' by a Finance Act (introducing government subsidy as income with effect from a specified future date) can be read retrospectively to tax subsidies received in earlier assessment years. 3. Whether fertilizer subsidy received under the Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) scheme constitutes capital receipt (non-taxable as income) or revenue receipt (taxable), for the relevant assessment years prior to the statutory amendment. 4. Whether incentives received under Status Holder Incentive Scrip (SHIS) and similar export-incentive scrip schemes are capital receipts (not chargeable to tax as income) or revenue receipts. 5. Whether receipts treated as capital in nature (fertilizer subsidy and export incentive scrips) must be excluded from book profit for the purpose of computing tax under the special corporate minimum tax provision (computation of book profit under section 115JB). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Admissibility of additional grounds raised by letter (versus by revised return) Legal framework: The Tribunal has statutory power to admit additional grounds in appeals; the concept of revised return and the requirement to file a revised return for altering taxable claims is part of the procedural framework under the Act and relevant jurisprudence. Precedent treatment: The Court acknowledged an existing Supreme Court authority holding that a revised return is generally the proper vehicle to raise additional claims, but also noted that that authority does not oust the Tribunal's power to admit additional claims. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that (a) an earlier Bench of the Tribunal had already admitted the additional grounds and remitted them to the assessing officer; and (b) in the set-aside proceedings the assessing officer had accepted one admitted ground (deduction under the specific incentives section). Given that the Tribunal's earlier order had been implemented and the Supreme Court authority expressly did not oust the Tribunal's admission power, the present challenge by the Revenue to admission was not maintainable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Tribunal's admission power remains intact and an appellate challenge to such admission is barred where prior Tribunal orders admitting the grounds have been given effect to. Obiter - general observations on procedural propriety of raising claims by revised return. Conclusion: The Revenue's objection to admission of additional grounds raised by letter is rejected; the Tribunal's prior admission stands and is binding for the present proceedings. Issue 2 - Retrospective operation of statutory amendment defining subsidy as 'income' Legal framework: A statutory amendment adding government assistance/subsidy to the inclusive definition of 'income' was enacted with an express operative date (w.e.f. a specified future assessment year). Principles of statutory construction and settled tax law require that amendments imposing liability be prospective unless clear legislative intent for retrospective application is shown. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on the settled proposition that amendments imposing tax liability are prospective and on the specific enactment date provided in the Finance Act. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the amendment explicitly operates from the stated future date and, as a matter of principle, cannot be applied retrospectively to earlier assessment years. There was no textual or legislative indication to support retrospective application to the assessment years under consideration. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - statutory amendment explicitly effective from a future date cannot be applied retrospectively to impose tax on subsidies received prior to that effective date. Conclusion: The amendment cannot be applied to the assessment years before the operative date; the Revenue's contention of retrospective operation is rejected. Issue 3 - Nature of fertilizer subsidy under NBS: capital or revenue receipt? Legal framework: Distinction between capital and revenue receipts depends on the character and purpose of the receipt; the 'purpose test' and substance-over-form considerations determine whether a government subsidy is capital in nature (linked to investment/encouragement of industry and not part of normal profits) or revenue in nature (compensatory for operating costs or price concessions). Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed a coordinate Bench decision addressing the identical scheme and relied on reasoning that has been applied in export- and industry-incentive contexts; the Court also considered relevant higher court and Tribunal jurisprudence dealing with subsidy characterization and incentives, where the purpose of the scheme and linkage to capital investment have been determinative. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the design and objective of the NBS scheme and similar government policies: while the scheme passes benefit to end-users (farmers), its broader purpose was to revive and encourage investment in a stagnating fertilizer industry, promote modernization, induce new players and innovations, and reduce manufacturing cost by stimulating capital investment. Given that the scheme's mechanism and monitoring sought to pass effectively a capital-like support to manufacturers who invest, the subsidy was held to be capital in nature. The Tribunal accepted the 'purpose test' applied by the CIT(A) and the coordinate Bench - a receipt intended to attract investment and not constituting profit from normal operations is capital in character and lies outside taxable income. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - fertilizer subsidy under the NBS scheme, as framed and operated, is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax as income for the assessment years prior to the statutory amendment. Obiter - discussion on how benefit-passing mechanisms and monitoring by the Ministry support the characterization. Conclusion: Fertilizer subsidy received under NBS for the assessment years in question is capital in nature; the Revenue's challenge to tax it as revenue is dismissed. Issue 4 - Nature of SHIS and related export-incentive scrips: capital or revenue receipt? Legal framework: Characterization of export incentives depends on the objective and terms of the incentive schemes: incentives tied to technology upgradation, investment in plant and machinery, or employment-generation may be capital in nature; incentives serving as price concessions or operational subsidies are generally revenue in nature. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed coordinate Bench decisions and higher authority reasoning which had analyzed the SHIS, IEIS, MLFPS schemes and similar incentives. Those decisions treated incentives that promote technology upgradation, investment, and capital expenditure as capital receipts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined scheme provisions: SHIS provided scrips to promote investment in technology upgradation and were usable for capital goods with actual user conditions; incremental export incentives were linked to investment and new plant and machinery; other market-linked incentives were tied to employment and exports of focus products. Because the schemes expressly incentivize capital investment or are conditional on capital use, the incentives were held to be capital receipts. The Tribunal also noted that scheme documentation and conditions supported this classification. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - incentives under SHIS and comparable export-incentive scrip schemes, given their objective to promote capital investment and technology upgradation and the scheme conditions (actual user / capital goods usage), are capital receipts and not taxable as income. Obiter - reliance on analogous decisions and scheme text to support conclusions. Conclusion: SHIS and similar export incentive scrips received in the assessment years before the statutory amendment are capital receipts; the Revenue's contention that they are taxable revenue receipts is rejected. Issue 5 - Exclusion of capital receipts from book profit for section 115JB computation Legal framework: Section 115JB (computation of book profit for minimum alternate tax) requires computation from the profit as shown in the profit and loss account; judicial precedent has considered whether capital receipts reflected in books should be included in book profit and whether capital receipts are to be excluded. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed binding High Court authority holding that receipts of capital nature are not to be included for computing book profit under section 115JB, and also relied on coordinate Bench Tribunal decisions applying the same principle. Interpretation and reasoning: Having determined that the fertilizer subsidy and SHIS incentives are capital receipts, the Tribunal accepted the established precedent that capital receipts should be excluded from the book profit computation for the purposes of section 115JB. The Tribunal applied the High Court's decision and consistent Tribunal rulings to reject Revenue's challenge to inclusion of these receipts in book profit. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - capital receipts should be excluded from the computation of book profit under section 115JB; where receipts are correctly characterized as capital, they do not form part of taxable book profit for that purpose. Obiter - none beyond reliance on binding authorities. Conclusion: The assessing officer must exclude the capital receipts (fertilizer subsidy and export incentive scrips) from book profit for computing liability under section 115JB; the Revenue's grounds to include them are dismissed.