Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following

question of law :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in taking a view that the sum of Rs. 1,24,05,255 being

purchase price and excise duty rebate/incentive is a benefit and, therefore, an income from business assessable to tax as provided in Section 2(24)

(vd) read with Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"" or

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,24,05,255 was trading receipt and consequently business income of

the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87 ?

We find that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question as well as an alternative question enabling this court to choose

anyone of the questions to answer is not a proper procedure. The Appellate Tribunal, at the time of forwarding the statement of case should

formulate the question or questions for consideration by this court, instead of referring alternative questions enabling this court to choose anyone of

them as it may think fit. We do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal in referring alternative questions for the

consideration of this court. However, we are of the view that the following question of law is deemed to be the question that has been referred by

the Appellate Tribunal for our consideration :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in taking a view that the sum of Rs. 1,24,05,255 being

purchase price and excise duty rebate/incentive is a benefit and, therefore, an income from business assessable to tax as provided in Section 2(24)

(vd) read with Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

Learned counsel for the assessee, in his fairness, submitted that the part of the question is liable to be answered against the assessee. He also

submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has not given break-up figures of the amount which is the subject matter of the tax case. Learned counsel

referred to an unreported decision in T. C. No. 492 of 1996 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., (in which one of

us was a party) wherein this court, by judgment dated September 16, 2002, has held that the purchase tax subsidy would form part of business

income, but the excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive are not the income of the assessee, but a capital receipt. In the instant case, the

Appellate Tribunal has referred to a combined and consolidated figure and the break-up figures of the amounts which are the subject matter of the

tax case are not available. Accordingly, we hold that the purchase tax subsidy received by the assessee would form part of the income from

business, however, the excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive would not form part of income from the business assessable to tax u/s 28(iv) of

the Income Tax Act. Since a consolidated amount is referred to in the question, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to determine which part of the

amount would represent the purchase price and which part of the amount would represent excise duty rebate or excise duty incentive which is not

taxable under the Income Tax Act. Though we technically answer the question of law referred to in paragraph 2 of the judgment in favour of the

Revenue, we remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to consider and determine the question which part of the amount would represent the

purchase price which is taxable under the Income Tax Act as business income and which part of the amount would represent the excise duty

rebate or excise duty incentive which is not taxable under the Income Tax Act. The question is answered accordingly. No costs.