Income – Accrual of (time of accrual of income) – Section 5 of ITA, 1961 – Where assessee sold a land during relevant assessment year and as per MOU part of sale consideration was payable by purchaser on completion of assessee’s obligation under MOU – Assessee having not met conditions of MOU during relevant year, such amount was not taxable in relevant assessment year

10. Principal CIT vs. Rohan
Projects

[2020] 113 taxmann.com 339
(Bom.)

Date of order: 18^th
November, 2019

A.Y.: 2012-13

Income – Accrual of (time of
accrual of income) – Section 5 of ITA, 1961 – Where assessee sold a land during
relevant assessment year and as per MOU part of sale consideration was payable
by purchaser on completion of assessee’s obligation under MOU – Assessee having
not met conditions of MOU during relevant year, such amount was not taxable in
relevant assessment year

The assessee
is engaged in the business termed Promoter and Developer. It had sold land to
M/s Symboisis which transaction took place in the previous year relevant to the
A.Y. 2012-13. The land was sold under  a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 2^nd February, 2012 for a
total consideration of Rs. 120 crores. However, the assessee offered only a sum
of Rs. 100 crores for tax in the return for the A.Y. 2012-13. This was because
the MOU provided that a sum of Rs. 20 crores would be paid by the purchaser
(M/s Symboisis) on execution of the sale deed after getting the plan sanctioned
and on inclusion of the name of the purchaser in the 7/12 extract. However, as
the assessee was not able to meet the conditions of the MOU during the subject
assessment year, the sum of Rs. 20 crores, according to the assessee, could not
be recognised as income for the subject assessment year. The A.O. did not accept
this and held that the entire sum of Rs. 120 crores is taxable in the subject
assessment year.

The Tribunal, after recording the
above facts and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Morvi
Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835, held that the income accrues
only when it becomes due, i.e., it must also be accompanied by corresponding
liability of the other party to pay the amount. On facts it was found that the
amount of Rs. 20 crores was not payable in the previous year relevant to the subject
assessment year as the assessee had not completed its obligation under the MOU
entirely. Moreover, it also found that Rs. 20 crores was offered to tax in the
subsequent assessment year and also taxed. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the
assessee’s appeal.

On appeal by the Revenue, the
following question of law was raised:

‘Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding
that a sum of Rs. 20 crores is not taxable in the subject assessment year?’

The Bombay High Court upheld the
decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

‘i) We note that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that
the respondent was not able to comply (with) its obligations under the MOU in
the previous year relevant to the subject assessment year so as to be entitled
to receive Rs. 20 crores is not shown to be perverse. In fact, the issue is
covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji
Vallabdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 wherein it is held that “Income
tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income-tax Act takes into account two
points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of
the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income; if
income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax ” So also in Morvi
Industries Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that income accrues
when there is a corresponding liability on the other party. In the present
facts, in terms of the MOU there is no liability on the other party to pay the
amounts.

ii) In any event, the amount of Rs. 20 crores has been offered to tax
in the subsequent assessment year and also taxed. This Court, in the case of CIT
vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom.) has observed as
follows:

“3. We have often wondered why
the Income-tax authorities, in a matter such as this where the deduction is
obviously a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, raise disputes as
to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the
year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax
chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different; but in the case
of income of a company, tax is attracted at a uniform rate, and whether the
deduction in respect of bonus was granted in the assessment year 1952-53 or in
the assessment year corresponding to the accounting year 1952, that is, in the
assessment year 1953-54, should be a matter of no consequence to the
Department; and one should have thought that the Department would not fritter
away its energies in fighting matters of this kind. But, obviously, judging
from the references that come up to us every now and then, the Department
appears to delight in raising points of this character which do not affect the
taxability of the assessee or the tax that the Department is likely to collect
from him whether in one year or the other.”

Nothing has been shown to us as
to why the above observation will not apply to the present facts.