1984 (7) TMI 129 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules interest income from fixed deposits belongs to assessee, not non-resident principals

Income-Tax Officer. Versus United Machinery And Appliances.

The Tribunal held that the interest income from short-term fixed deposits belonged to the assessee, not the non-resident principals, despite initial ... Interest Income Issues Involved:1. Taxability of interest income from short-term fixed deposits.2. Determination of the rightful owner of the interest income.3. Impact of RBI's instructions on the treatment of interest income.4. Consistency in the treatment of interest income in past and subsequent years.5. Fiduciary relationship between the assessee and non-resident principals.Detailed Analysis:1. Taxability of Interest Income from Short-Term Fixed Deposits:The primary issue in the appeal was whether the interest income of Rs. 3,43,573 from short-term fixed deposits was taxable in the hands of the assessee. The ITO noted that the assessee followed the mercantile method of accounting and traditionally declared such interest as its income. However, for the year 1977, the assessee claimed that this income was not taxable in its hands, as the interest was credited to the principals' account based on RBI's instructions.2. Determination of the Rightful Owner of the Interest Income:The ITO argued that there was no stipulation in the contract between the assessee and the non-residents that the interest income would belong to the non-residents. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee had credited the interest income to the non-residents' accounts based on a letter from the RBI dated 23-5-1977. However, the revenue contended that the interest income was the assessee's income, as it had the right to receive it from the bank.3. Impact of RBI's Instructions on the Treatment of Interest Income:The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the RBI had initially permitted the interest to be credited to the principals' account but later, in January 1978, directed the assessee to discontinue this practice. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that for the calendar year 1977, the interest income was not the real income of the assessee due to the RBI's instructions. However, the revenue argued that the assessee's conduct in past and subsequent years showed that the income belonged to the assessee.4. Consistency in the Treatment of Interest Income in Past and Subsequent Years:The assessee had shown interest income as its own in the past and reverted to this practice after January 1978. The revenue contended that this consistency indicated that the income did not belong to the non-residents. The assessee argued that the interest income was assessed in the hands of the non-residents at a higher rate, but the revenue maintained that this was immaterial to the current issue.5. Fiduciary Relationship between the Assessee and Non-Resident Principals:The Tribunal examined whether the assessee held the interest income in a fiduciary capacity for the non-residents. It found no evidence of an agreement or stipulation requiring the assessee to deposit the freight money in banks to earn interest for the principals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had the control and custody of the money until RBI's permission for remittance was received, and there was no fiduciary relationship that made the assessee a trustee for the non-residents.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the interest income from short-term deposits represented the income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,43,573 from the assessment. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored that of the ITO, thereby allowing the revenue's appeal.