Refundable deposits under contractual or fiduciary obligation are not trading receipts, and revision based on their taxation fails.

Amounts received under a sales tax suspense account were treated as refundable deposits taken pending later production of declaration forms, so they did not constitute taxable trading receipts because they were held under an enforceable obligation to refund. Amounts credited to the collector of customs (party) account were likewise not taxable trading receipts, as the assessee acted only as a forwarding and handling agent, held the money in a fiduciary and representative capacity, and had no beneficial trade in the imported goods. Since both deposits were not income, the foundation for revision under section 263 failed and the revisional order could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether amounts credited under the sales tax suspense account were trading receipts taxable in the assessee's hands; (ii) whether amounts credited under the collector of customs (party) account were trading receipts taxable in the assessee's hands; (iii) whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the assessments under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether amounts credited under the sales tax suspense account were trading receipts taxable in the assessee's hands.

Analysis: The receipts represented refundable deposits taken from registered dealers who had not produced declaration forms at the time of sale. The relevant sales tax scheme permitted the declaration to be furnished later, and the arrangement under which the assessee took security and agreed to refund it on production of the declaration was not challenged. The amount was earmarked for refund and was not shown to have been retained as the assessee's own trading receipt. The principle that a receipt does not become income when it is received under an enforceable obligation to refund was applied, and the sales tax cases relied on by the revenue were distinguished on facts.

Conclusion: The amounts in the sales tax suspense account were not taxable trading receipts and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether amounts credited under the collector of customs (party) account were trading receipts taxable in the assessee's hands.

Analysis: The assessee acted only as forwarding and handling agent, the imported goods belonged to the principals, and the deposits were taken only to secure the assessee's bank guarantee and were expressly refundable or adjustable after final settlement. The money was received in a fiduciary and representative capacity under a specific obligation, and the assessee did not trade in the imported goods. On these facts, the deposit could not be characterised as the assessee's own income or trading receipt.

Conclusion: The amounts in the collector of customs (party) account were not taxable trading receipts and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the assessments under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The revision rested on the premise that the two disputed deposits were taxable income. Once it was held that neither set of deposits constituted trading receipts or taxable income, the basis for treating the assessments as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue disappeared.

Conclusion: The revisional order under section 263 could not be sustained and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessments were restored by vacating the revisional order, and the assessee succeeded on all substantive issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A receipt taken under an enforceable contractual or fiduciary obligation to refund or adjust it does not attain the character of taxable trading income merely because it is connected with business operations or is kept in a separate account.

---