IT: Receipts of premium on import licence, sale of scrap, miscellaneous garden income and excise duty having direct nexus with assessee's activities of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea should be treated assessee's composite income before apportionment thereof in terms of rule 8 of Income-tax Rules
■■■
[2013] 38 taxmann.com 273 (Gauhati)
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
McLeod Russel India Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of Income-tax*
I.A. ANSARI AND MRS. INDIRA SHAH, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2011†
JUNE 18, 2013
Section 2(1A), read with section 28(iiia)/(iiic), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Agriculture income [Tea manufacture] - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether as and when an income shall be chargeable to tax under head of 'profits and gains derived from business', it would be wholly impermissible for Assessing Officer to treat income which fell within ambit of clause (iiia) and clause (iiic) of section 28, as income which was not composite income - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, where amount received from premium on import licence, sale of scrap, miscellaneous garden income and excise duty had direct nexus with assessee's activities of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea, same should be treated as composite income of assessee before apportionment thereof under rule 8 - Held, yes [Paras 20 to 28] [In favour of assessee]
FACTS
| ■ | As the assessee was engaged in the business of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea, the assessee's income was accordingly, required to be computed as if the income was an income derived from business and 40 per cent of such income is, in terms of the rule 8, is deemed to be income subject to the Act, whereas the balance 60 per cent of the income is treated as the agricultural income for the purpose of levy under the Assam Agricultural IT Act, 1939. The assessee claimed receipts relating to premium on import licence, sale of scrap, miscellaneous income and excise duty rebate as composite income before apportionment thereof under rule 8. | |
| ■ | The Assessing Officer however excluded said receipts from composite income and added same to central taxable income after apportionment under rule 8. | |
| ■ | The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer. | |
| ■ | On appeal: |
HELD
| ■ | Section 28(iiia) clearly lays down that the 'profits and gains derived from business and profession' are chargeable to income-tax under the head of 'Profits and gains of business' and the same has to be treated as income derived from sale of tea, grown and manufactured by the assessee. Since the fact, that the amount of premium, claimed by the assessee, as having been received from premium on import licence, is not in dispute, it is evident that this sum ought to have been treated as an income falling under section 28(iiia) and chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Profits and gains derived from business' and the same ought to have been treated as an income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessee. [Para 20] | |
| ■ | Similarly, as regards the sum, which was claimed by the assessee as receipt from excise duty, it ought to be appreciated that since this amount, indisputably, relates to excise duty rebate, the same was composite income under section 28(iiic) in as much as section 28(iiic) clearly lays down that any duty of customs or excise, repaid or repayable as drawback to any person against exports under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, is chargeable under the IT Act under the head of 'Profits and gains derived from business' and, thus, the excise duty rebate, in the present case, was a part of the composite income before apportionment thereof under rule 8 of the Rules. [Para 21] | |
| ■ | Turning to the sum of Rs. 2,12,218, claimed by the assessee as receipt from sale of scraps, it needs to be appreciated that sale of scraps, generated in a tea estate in the process of growing and manufacturing of tea, is, indisputably, an ancillary part of the business of growing and manufacturing of tea and, hence, the same forms part of the composite income of the assessee. More so, when the assessee had made it clear that the receipt of Rs. 2,12,218 was on account of sale of scraps, realised from regular sale of unused or unusable goods of the tea estate, which were procured from time to time in course of running of the business of growing and manufacturing of tea and that the expenses, incurred from such items, formed composite income before apportionment thereof under rule 8. [Para 22] | |
| ■ | Turning to the assessee's claim of miscellaneous garden income arising out of the amount received from insurance claim, lodged with the insurer on account of loss caused to the business of tea, finished plantation, etc., due to flood and heavy rains, it is noteworthy that the amount paid, in terms of the insurance claims, in the circumstances as indicated hereinbefore, and in respect of the items, as mentioned hereinbefore, ought to be treated as part of the composite income of the assessee before apportionment thereof under rule 8. [Para 24] | |
| ■ | What surfaces from the above discussion that the assessee's claim for the sum as receipt from premium on import licence, as receipt from sale of scrap, Rs. 1,44,32,310 as the amount receipt from miscellaneous garden income and Rs. 6,69,740 as receipt from excise duty, were but the income derived from the business of tea, or from the activities of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea and these receipts ought to have been treated as composite income of the assessee-appellant before apportionment thereof in terms of rule 8. [Para 25] | |
| ■ | There can be no dispute that the expression 'income derived from', is narrower than the expression 'income attributable to'. In the case at hand, however, when statutory provisions have been made in the form of clause (iiia) and clause (iiic) of section 28, one can have no escape from the conclusion that as and when an income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head of profits and gains derived from business, it would be wholly impermissible for the Assessing Officer to treat the income, which fell within the ambit of clause (iiia) and clause (iiic) of section 28, as income, which was not composite income. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal committed serious error in ignoring the statutory provisions of clauses (iiia) and (iiic) of section 28. [Para 26] | |
| ■ | Considering the fact that the receipts, which the assessee claimed as composite income before apportionment thereof in terms of rule 8, had direct nexus with the assessee's activities of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea, it was not open to the authority concerned to treat such income as an income, which could not have been described as income derived from the business of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea by the assessee. [Para 28] | |
| ■ | The impugned order shall accordingly stand set aside and quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to treat the receipts of premium on import licence, sale of scrap, miscellaneous garden income and excise duty as the assessee composite income before apportionment thereof in terms of rule 8 of the Rules. [Para 30] |
Ashok Saraf, M.L. Gupe, Ms. N. Hawellia and A. Goyal for the Appellant. S. Sarma for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari, J. - This is an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, passed in ITA No.99/Gau/2008, by the learned Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby thelearned Tribunal has upheld the assessment of composite income by the IT authorities, which was put to challenge by the assessee-appellant herein.
2. We have heard Ms. N. Hawellia, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant. We have also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Department of Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The material facts, giving rise to this appeal, may, in brief, be set out as under :
| (i) | The appellant is engaged in the business of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea. As the appellant is engaged in the business of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea, the appellant's income is, accordingly, required to be computed as if the income is an income derived from business and 40 per cent of such income is, in terms of the r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962, is deemed to be income subject to the IT Act, 1961, whereas the balance 60 per cent of the income is treated as the agricultural income for the purpose of levy under the Assam Agricultural IT Act, 1939. In the asst. yr. 2004-05, the appellant submitted its return of inc6me claiming a sum of Rs. 2,73,40,080 as part of composite income before apportionment thereof under the r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962. The income, as reflected by the appellant, included as under : |
| Heads | Amount (Rs.) | |
| Premium on import licence | 1,20,25,812 | |
| Sale of scrap | 2,12,218 | |
| Miscellaneous garden income | 1,44,32,310 | |
| Excise duty | 6,69,740 |
| (ii) | During the course of assessment proceeding, the appellant, vide its letter dt. 1st Dec., 2006, replied to the questionnaires for the assessment proceeding and gave details of the aforesaid receipts. However, the AO, vide order of assessment dt. 29th Dec., 2006, excluded the said miscellaneous receipts amounting to Rs. 2,73,40,080 from the composite income of the appellant and added the same to the Central taxable income after apportionment under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962. However, the AO, while excluding the said miscellaneous receipt amounting to Rs. 2,73,40,080 from the composite income, held that whatever income is derived by the appellant cannot be included in the composite income before apportionment thereof. The AO also held, in his order of assessment dt. 29th Dec., 2006, that the fact of carrying on business of tea does not lead to inference that all the income, received by the appellant from its business, were derived from its business of tea. The AO further held, in the assessment order dt. 29th Dec., 2006, that it is the manner and nature in which the income is derived, which is relevant, and not merely the fact that the person is engaged in the business or in the profession. The AO, therefore, held that the income, received by the appellant, has to be treated as the Central taxable income having regard to the source from which the income is derived and merely because the income has been received by a grower, manufacturer or seller of tea, it should not be included in the composite income. The AO, therefore, held that the amount of other income, received by the appellant, falls under the category of Central taxable income and has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of IT Act, 1961 r/w the IT Rules, 1962. Consequently, the AO excluded the said miscellaneous receipt amounting to Rs. 2,73,40,080 from the composite income of the appellant and added the said sum to the Central taxable income as business income of the appellant after apportionment under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962. | |
| (iii) | Aggrieved by the order of assessment, dt. 29th Dec., 2006, aforementioned, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Guwahati, on the ground, inter alia, that the AO had erred in excluding the miscellaneous receipt of Rs. 2,73,40,080 from the composite income of the appellant and in treating the miscellaneous receipts as Central taxable income. | |
| (iv) | By order dt. 14th Feb., 2008, the CIT(A)-(II), Guwahati, dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment order. In his order dt. 14th Feb., 2008, aforementioned, while upholding the order of assessment, the CIT(A) took the view that r. 8 provides for computation of only those income, which have been derived from the sale of tea that are grown and manufactured by the seller, and, therefore, the miscellaneous receipts, in the present case, cannot be said to have been derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the appellant. The CIT(A) also took the view that the miscellaneous receipts, in the present case, might be 'attributable to' the tea business, but it cannot be treated as income 'derived from' the tea business. The miscellaneous expenses, which the appellants had shown in the IT return, were, according to the CIT, not income derived from the activity of growing and manufacturing of tea and do not, therefore, bear direct nexus with the sale of the tea grown or manufactured by the appellant. The appellate authority further took the view that the composite income, referred to in r. 8, shall arise out of the core activity of growing and manufacturing of tea and must, therefore, directly relate to the operational activities of tea and not to extraneous activities thereof. With the reasonings, so assigned, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority. | |
| (v) | Aggrieved by the order of assessment and the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, which came to be registered as ITA No. 99/Gau/2008. | |
| (vi) | The learned Tribunal, too, vide its order dt. 16th Nov., 2010, aforementioned, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the appellate authority by taking the view that the miscellaneous receipts, amounting to Rs. 2,73,40,080, shall not be treated as composite income of the appellant before apportionment under r. 8. The learned Tribunal also took the view that in order to be composite income under r. 8, the income has to be derived from the business of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea and, in the case at hand, though the miscellaneous receipts might be treated as 'attributable to' the business of tea of the appellant, the miscellaneous receipts cannot be treated, in law, as income 'derived from' the business of tea. On the basis of the conclusions, so arrived at, the learned Tribunal, by its order dt. 16th Nov., 2010, aforementioned, dismissed the appeal. | |
| (vii) | Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Tribunal, the assessee has presented before us, as appellant, this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. |
4. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law for determination :
| " 1. | Whether the receipts on account of premium on import licence, sale of scrap, miscellaneous garden income and excise duty rebate form part of the composite income before apportionment under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962, being derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured ? | |
| 2. | Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the learned Tribunal, Guwahati, affirming the determination made by the learned CIT(A), Guwahati, that premium on import licence, sale of scrap, miscellaneous garden income and excise duty rebate do not constitute the composite income before apportionment under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962, is not borne out by the relevant facts and is thus perverse ?" |
5. Both the above questions, which have been formulated for hearing in this appeal are, in effect, one and the same.
6. Submissions :
Presenting the appeal, on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Hawelia, learned counsel for the appellant, points out that the learned Tribunal failed to notice that the appellant, as an assessee, had claimed four kinds of receipts as composite income before apportionment thereof under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962, these four receipts being, premium on import licence, amounting to Rs. 1,20,25,812, sale of scrap, amounting to Rs. 2,12,218, miscellaneous garden income, arising out of receipts of insurance claim, amounting to Rs. 1,44,32,310, and excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,69,740. The learned Tribunal further points out Ms. Hawelia, learned counsel, has committed manifest error of law in refusing to treat the income 'derived by' the assessee-appellant from the sale of import licence, amounting to Rs. 1,20,25,812, as the appellant's composite income before apportionment thereof under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962, in as much as the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that, as per s. 28(iiia) of the IT Act, 1961, profits on sale of a licence granted under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, is chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession', and the same is an income 'derived from' the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessee-appellant. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee-appellant submits that the learned Tribunal wholly failed to appreciate that the import licence is a benefit against the export of goods and merchandise, which is the outcome of the activities of exporting tea by the assessee-appellant and the same motivates the assessee to sell tea, at a competitive rate, to exploit export market and thereby the same is clearly an income 'derived from' the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the appellant and forms part of the composite income before apportionment thereof under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962.
7. Ms. Hawellia, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant, has also submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in error in excluding the receipt from sale of scraps amounting to Rs. 2,12,218 from the composite income of the assessee-appellant before apportionment under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962, without appreciating the fact that sale of scraps, generated at the appellant's tea gardens, is out of the activity of growing and manufacturing of tea and, therefore, the said sales of scraps were integrally connected with the business of growing and manufacturing of tea and that the same forms part of the composite income of the appellant before apportionment under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962.
8. It is submitted by Ms. Hawellia, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant, that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the receipt of Rs. 2,12,218, on account of sale of scraps being in relation to the regular sale of unusable goods at tea gardens, which are procured from time to time in course of running of the business of growing and manufacturing of tea, and expenses incurred for such items are deductible, while computing the composite income before apportionment under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962.
9. With regard to the receipts of miscellaneous garden income of Rs. 1,44,32,310, as reflected in the return of the assessee-appellant, it is submitted by Ms. Hawellia, learned counsel, that the said sum of Rs. 1,44,32,310, being insurance claim realised by the appellant on account of loss caused due to flood and heavy rains to tea bushes, finished plantations, etc., is directly connected to the business of the growing and manufacture of tea and the same, therefore, formed part of the composite income before apportionment under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962.
10. As regards exclusion of a sum of Rs. 6,69,740, on account of excise duty rebate, from the composite income before apportionment under r. 8 of the Rules, Ms. Hawellia, learned counsel, submits that the exclusion of the said sum of Rs. 6,69,740, from being treated as composite income, is wholly illegal and not tenable in law in as much as the learned Tribunal failed to note that the said sum of Rs. 6,69,740 related to excise duty rebate, which was deductible in computing the composite income paid by the appellant in terms of s. 28(iiic) of the IT Act, 1961, whereunder any duty of customs or excise, repaid or repayable as drawback to any person against exports under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, is chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. Therefore, excise duty rebate, being of such a nature, as described hereinbefore, ought to be included, according to Ms. Hawellia, as the part of composite income before application of r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962.
11. Based on the above submissions, Ms. Hawellia, learned counsel, contends that the order of the AO was wholly bad in law and the appellate authority as well as the learned Tribunal have incorrectly upheld the assessment order, though the same was not tenable in law and, hence, the order of the learned Tribunal, which stands impugned in this appeal, may be set aside and, in consequence thereof, the impugned assessment order as well as the impugned order of the appellate authority may also be set aside and quashed.
12. Resisting the appeal, Mr. S. Sarma, learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the assessee-appellant had completely failed to satisfy the AO about the tenability of its claim to treat the receipts of premium on import licence, amounting to Rs. 1,20,25,812, sale of scrap, amounting to Rs. 2,12,218, miscellaneous garden income amounting to Rs. 1,44,32,310, and excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,69,740, as composite income before apportionment thereof under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962, and since the assessee-appellant had failed to satisfy, by producing relevant materials before the AO, that the claims of the assessee-appellant for the benefit under r. 8, were tenable in law, the AO was within the ambit of its power in rejecting the claims of the assessee-appellant and in making the impugned assessment order. In such circumstances, according to Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel, the assessment order was wholly consistent with law and, hence, neither the impugned order of the appellate authority, nor the impugned order of the learned Tribunal calls for interference in appeal.
13. While considering the present appeal, in the light of the rival submissions made before this Court, it needs to be noted that the correctness of the various amounts, shown as premium on import licence, sale of scrap, miscellaneous garden income, and excise duty, etc. are not in dispute. What is in dispute, as evident from the formulation of the substantial questions of law, is the fact as to whether the amounts, which have been so shown, ought to have been treated by the respondents as the composite income, before apportionment thereof under r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962, derived from the business of sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessee-appellant.
14. The moot question, therefore, which arises for consideration is: whether the various receipts of income, which the assessee-appellant has claimed to be its "composite income, are, in law, composite income and fall within the ambit of r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962 ?
15. For the purpose of correct appreciation and clarity, what needs to pointed out, at the very outset, is that the IT Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), having taken note of the fact that an assessee may derive income partially from agriculture and partially from business, introduced a mechanism for the purpose of making assessment of income as 'derived from business' vis-a-vis income, which is treatable as agricultural income. Part II of the Rules deals with the determination of income derived from various sources. Under the heading 'D-Special cases', various incomes have been taken into account in order to show as to how they are to be computed and apportioned for the purpose of imposition of tax. Rule 7 of the Rules which falls under the heading 'D-Special cases', deals with income, which is partially agricultural and partially from business, and lays down as to what are the various components, which are to be taken into account for the purpose of assessment of a receipt treatable as agricultural income vis-a-vis income chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business'.
16. It is r. 8, which is relevant for our purpose in as much as r. 8, which falls under the heading, 'D-Special cases', deals with income from the manufacture of tea. Rule 8 of the Rules, being relevant and fundamental in nature in answering the questions, which have been formulated in this appeal, as substantial questions of law, are reproduced below :
"8. Income from the manufacture of tea.— (1) Income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured by the seller in India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent of such income shall be deemed to be income liable to tax.
(2) In computing such income an allowance shall be made in respect of the cost of planting bushes in replacement of bushes that have died or become permanently useless in an area already planted, if such area has not previously been abandoned and for the purpose of determining such cost, no deduction shall be made in respect of the amount of any subsidy which, under the provision of cl. (30) of s. 10, is not includible in the total income."
17. From a bare reading of r. 8, what becomes abundantly clear is that the rule-making authority has prescribed that the income, which is derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by a seller, shall be treated as if it were the 'income derived from the business' and 40 per cent of such income shall be deemed to be income chargeable under the IT Act, 1961. Extended logically, it would mean that the remaining 60 per cent of the income has to be treated as agricultural income and would, obviously, be chargeable to tax under the Assam Agricultural IT Act, 1939.
18. What, now, needs to be noted is that s. 28 of the IT Act, 1961, embodies certain income chargeable to income-tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession'. Since s. 28(iiia) and s. 28(iiic) of the IT Act, 1961, are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal, both these rules are reproduced below :
"28. Profits and gains of business or profession.— The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'—
(iiia) profits on sale of a licence granted under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
(iiic) any duty of customs or excise repaid or repayable as drawback to any person against exports under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971."
19. From a bare reading of s. 28(iiia), it becomes clear that the profits on sale of a licence, granted under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, are to be treated as income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured. Similarly, s. 28(iiic) provides that duty of customs or excise repaid or repayable as drawback to any person against exports under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, has to be treated as an income chargeable under the IT Act, within the purview of the head of 'Profits and gains of business and profession'.
20. In the present case, the assessee-appellant, in its annual return of income, showed the premiums paid (sic) by it on import licence, amounting to Rs. 1,20,25,812, as a composite income. It is noteworthy, in this regard, that s. 28(iiia) clearly lays down that the profits and gains derived from business and profession' are chargeable to income-tax under the head of 'Profits and gains of business' and the same has to be treated as income derived from sale of tea, grown and manufactured by the assessee-appellant. Since the fact, that the amount of premium, claimed by the assessee-appellant, as having been received from premium on import licence, is not in dispute, it is evident that this sum of Rs. 1,20,25,812 ought to have been treated as an income falling under s. 28(iiia) and chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Profits and gains derived from business' and the same ought to have been treated as an income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessee-appellant.
21. Similarly, as regards the sum of Rs. 6,69,746, which was claimed by the assessee-appellant as receipt from excise duty, it ought to be appreciated that since this amount, indisputably, relates to excise duty rebate, the same was composite income under s. 28(iiic) in as much as s. 28(iiic) clearly lays down that any duty of customs or excise, repaid or repayable as drawback to any person against exports under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, is i chargeable under the IT Act under the head of 'Profits and gains derived 1 from business' and, thus, the excise duty rebate, in the present case, was a part of the composite income before apportionment thereof under r. 8 of the Rules.
22. Turning to the sum of Rs. 2,12,218, claimed by the assessee-appellant as receipt from sale of scraps, it needs to be appreciated that sale of scraps, generated in a tea estate in the process of growing and manufacturing of tea, is, indisputably, an ancillary part of the business of growing and manufacturing of tea and, hence, the same forms part of the composite income of the appellant as an assessee. More so, when the appellant as an assessee had made it clear that the receipt of Rs. 2,12,218 was on account of sale of scraps, realized from regular sale of unused or unusuable goods of the tea estate, which were procured from time to time in course of running of the business of growing and manufacturing of tea and that the expenses, incurred from such items, formed composite income before apportionment thereof under r. 8.
23. Neither, therefore, the receipts of premium on import of licence, amounting to Rs. 1,20,25,812 nor the receipt amounting to Rs. 2,12,218 realized from the sale of scraps, could have been refused to be treated as composite income of the assessee-appellant before apportionment thereof in terms of r. 8 of the Rules.
24. Turning to the assessee-appellant's claim of miscellaneous garden income amounting to Rs, 1,44,32,310. arising out of the amount received from insurance claim, lodged with the insurer on account of loss caused to the business of tea, finished plantation, etc., due to flood and heavy rains, it is noteworthy that the amount paid, in terms of the insurance claims, in the circumstances as indicated hereinbefore, and in respect of the items, as mentioned hereinbefore, ought to be treated as part of the composite income of the assessee-appellant before apportionment thereof under r. 8.
25. What surfaces from the above discussion that the assessee-appellant's claim for the sum of Rs. 1,20,25,812 as receipt from premium on import licence, Rs. 2,12,218, as receipt from sale of scrap, Rs. 1,44,32,310 as the amount receipt from miscellaneous garden income and Rs. 6,69,740 as receipt from excise duty, were but the income derived from the business of tea, or from the activities of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea and these receipts ought to have been treated as composite income of the assessee-appellant before apportionment thereof in terms of r. 8.
26. There can be no dispute that the expression 'income derived from', is narrower than the expression 'income attributable to'. In the case at hand, however, when statutory provisions have been made in the form of cl. (iiia) and cl. (iiic) of s. 28 of the Act, one can have no escape from the conclusion that as and when an income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head of profits and gains derived from business, it would be wholly impermissible for the AO to treat the income, which fell within the ambit of cl. (iiia) and cl. (iiic) of s. 28 of the Act, as income, which was not composite income. The learned CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal committed serious error in ignoring the statutory provisions of cls. (iiia) and (iiic) of s. 28.
27. Having considered the rival submissions, made on behalf of the parties concerned, and having perused the materials placed on record before us, we notice that none of the three orders, namely, order of assessment, dt. 29th Dec., 2006, passed by the learned AO, the appellate order, dt. 14th Feb., 2008, passed by the learned CIT(A), Guwahati, and, eventually, the impugned order, dt. 16th Nov., 2010, passed by the learned Tribunal, disputed the amount of money claimed as amount received from premium on import licence, sale of scrap, miscellaneous garden income and excise duty, etc. What has been in dispute is the claim of the assessee-appellant that the said receipts ought to be treated as composite income, before apportionment thereof, under r. 8 of the Rules.
28. Considering the fact that the receipts, which the assessee-appellant claimed as composite income before apportionment thereof in terms of r. 8, had direct nexus with the assessee-appellant's activities of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea, it was not open to the authority concerned to treat such income as an income, which could not have been described as income derived from the business of growing, manufacturing and selling of tea by the assessee-appellant.
29. Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that the refusal to treat the total sum of Rs. 2,73,40,080 as composite income of the assessee-appellant, before apportionment thereof, under r. 8, was wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.
30. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned order dt. 16th Nov, 2010, passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside and quashed and, in consequence thereof, the assessment order dt. 29th Dec, 2006, as well as the order, dt. 14th Feb., 2008, passed by the learned CIT(A)-I1, Guwahati, shall accordingly stand set aside and quashed. The respondents are hereby j directed to treat the receipts of premium on import licence, amounting to Rs. 1,20,25,812, sale of Scrap, amounting to Rs. 2,12,218, miscellaneous garden income amounting to Rs. 1,44,32,310 and excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,69,740, as the assessee-appellant's composite income before apportionment thereof in terms of r. 8 of the Rules.
31. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disposed of.
32. No order as to costs.
Regards
Prarthana Jalan
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment