TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2010-2011. 2. The revenue has proposed solitary substantial question of law in its Memorandum of Appeal. The question formulated reads thus: " 2(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in upholding the order of the CIT(A) for deleting the addition of Rs. 4,42,72,610/in holding carbon receipts as capital receipts?" 3. We take notice of the fact that the similar issue had arose in the case of very same assessee, so far as the assessment for the year 2009-10 is concerned, we refer to the order passed by this Court in the Tax Appeal No.141 of 2017 dated 02.03.2017. The relevant observations made in the said order reads thus: "[ 1.0] Feeling aggrieved and di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....soned judgment and order the learned CIT(A) directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs. 5,78,28,058/by observing that as there was no transfer / sale of the carbon receipts during the year under consideration and therefore, the same cannot be included in the year consideration. The learned Tribunal in an appeal preferred by the Revenue has confirmed the said order passed by the learned CIT(A) by specifically observing that as the carbon receipts were neither sold / transferred during the year under consideration and therefore, the same cannot be included in the income of the assessee in the year under consideration. [3.1] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....95 (SC). In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the question was whether advance license benefit and the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefits were taxable in the year in which the same were actually utilized by the assessee or in the year of receipts. While considering the aforesaid question, in paras 13 to 27, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "13. The Revenue then preferred an appeal under Section 260A of the Act in respect of the following substantial question of law: "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law ITAT is justified in law in holding by following its decision in the case of Jamshri Ranjitsinghji Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (41 ITD 142), that advance l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in bookkeeping, an entry is made about a 'hypothetical income', which does not materialise. Where income has, in fact, been received and is subsequently given up in such circumstances that it remains the income of the recipient, even though given up, the tax may be payable. Where, however, the income can be said not to have resulted at all, there is obviously neither accrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account." 18. The above passage was cited with approval in Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Incometax (Central), [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) in which this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner of Income Tax, [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) this Court reiterated the view taken in Shoorji Vallabhdas and Morvi Industries. 23. Godhra Electricity is rather instructive. In that case, it was noted that the High Court held that the assessee would be obliged to pay tax when the profit became actually due and that income could not be said to have accrued when it is based on a mere claim not backed by any legal or contractual right to receive the amount at a subsequent date. The High Court however held on the facts of the case that the assessee had a legal right to recover the consumption charge in dispute at the enhanced rate from the consumers. 24. This Court did not accept the view taken by the High Court on fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons so considered was a letter addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, to the assessee whereby the assessee was "advised" to maintain status quo in respect of enhanced charges for at least six months. This Court took the view that though the letter had no legal binding effect but "one has to look at things from a practical point of view." (See R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC)). This Court took the view that the probability or improbability of realisation has to be considered in a realistic manner and it was held that there was no real accrual of income to the assessee in respect of the disputed enhanced charges for supply of electri....