2004 (2) TMI 282 - AT - Income Tax

Chitty subscriptions not deposits under Interest Tax Act - Tribunal ruling

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not liable under the Interest Tax Act. The subscriptions received by the assessee from its chitty subscribers ... Financial Company Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Interest Tax Act to the assessee.2. Classification of the assessee as a credit institution.3. Definition and interpretation of 'deposit' under the Interest Tax Act.4. Levy of interest under sections 12 and 12A of the Interest Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Interest Tax Act to the Assessee:The primary issue revolves around whether the provisions of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 apply to the assessee. The assessee contends that it cannot be classified as a credit institution within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Interest Tax Act. The assessee argues that its principal business is chitty business, and it has been exempted from registration under section 45(1A) of the Reserve Bank of India Act by the Reserve Bank of India. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee falls under the purview of the Interest Tax Act, which the assessee disputes.2. Classification of the Assessee as a Credit Institution:The assessee argues that it cannot be classified as a financial company or a credit institution under section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee is a credit institution as it receives subscriptions under various chitty schemes, which he classified as accepting deposits 'in instalments by way of contributions or subscriptions.' The assessee disputes this classification, arguing that the subscriptions received cannot be treated as deposits.3. Definition and Interpretation of 'Deposit' under the Interest Tax Act:The assessee contends that the amount received from chitty subscribers does not constitute a deposit as defined under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The Interest Tax Act does not define 'deposit,' and the assessee argues that the definition provided by the Reserve Bank of India Act should be applied. According to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 'deposit' excludes any amount received by subscription in respect of a chit. Therefore, the assessee argues that it should not be classified as a credit institution liable to interest tax.4. Levy of Interest under Sections 12 and 12A of the Interest Tax Act:The Revenue appeals pertain to the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000, and 2000-01, challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that no interest is leviable under sections 12 and 12A of the Interest Tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the assessee returned Nil interest, no interest is leviable. The Revenue argues that the Supreme Court decision cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) relates to sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, not sections 12 and 12A of the Interest Tax Act.Judgment Summary:The Tribunal held that the assessee is not liable under the Interest Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the subscriptions received by the assessee from its chitty subscribers cannot be treated as deposits under the definition provided by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Consequently, the assessee cannot be classified as a credit institution for the purposes of the Interest Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes' Circular No. 636, dated 31-8-1992, supports this interpretation. Therefore, the orders of the revenue authorities were canceled, and the appeals by the assessee were allowed. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed as they had become infructuous.