• Kandivali West Mumbai 400067, India
  • 022 39167251
  • support@email.com
September 30, 2022

Interest on delayed payments from debtors is eligible for a deduction under Section 80(I)

by CA Shivam Jaiswal in Income Tax, Legal Court Judgement

Interest on delayed payments from debtors is eligible for a deduction under Section 80(I)

Facts and Issue of the Case

The assessee is engaged in business of manufacture and production of rice bran oil, other oils, oil cakes etc. The appellant is assessed to Income Tax by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Vijayawada at that material point of time. For the assessment year 1997-98, the company filed its returns on 27.10.1997 declaring the total income of Rs.23,67,220/-. While filing its return, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2,60,580/- under Section 80(I) of the I.T. Act. The return was taken up for scrutiny under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of I.T. Act. The assessment was completed on 08.05.1998 by allowing deductions only to an extent of Rs.55,924/-. The reason for restricting the deduction appears to be that the interest paid was not derived from the business of the manufacture and production of the industrial undertaking.

Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT Appeals (IV), Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Appeal found that as the interest amount of Rs.14,60,994/- was received from the debtors, on account of delay in payment of sale proceeds, the same cannot be said to have derived from industrial undertaking and accordingly allowed the appeal in part vide Order dated 31.07.2000. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench in ITA . The Judicial Member of the Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee in holding that the amount was from the business of the manufacture and production by following the decisions laid down by various Courts. However, the Accountant Member disagreed with the view expressed by the Judicial Member and rejected the plea of the assessee, as such, the matter was referred to a Third Member under Section 255 (4) of the I.T. Act.

The issue before the Third Member was “whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee shall be entitled for deduction under Section 80(I) in respect of interest received on delayed payment by the customers? The Third Member agreed with the view expressed by the Accountant Member and held that the interest receivable from the debtors on account of the delayed payments of sale proceeds is not an income derived from the business of industrial undertaking. Ms. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel representing Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that the Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that the interest earned from debtors, payable for the delay, in remitting the sale proceeds to the assessee is not an income derived from the industrial undertaking engaged in the business of manufacture and production. She relied upon the judgments of Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Motors Limited1, and the judgment of High Court of Gujarat in Nirma Industries Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax2. While distinguishing the ratio laid down in Pandian Chemicals Limited Vs. CIT3, would contend that the Tribunal ought to have given the relief to the assessee.

Observation by the Court

The court noted here that in Pandian Chemicals, the assessee made deposits in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and was earning interest thereon. For getting power connection, every industrial undertaking had to maintain deposit in Electricity Board. The Division Bench held that the interest derived from such deposits could not be said to have been derived from industrial undertaking. This view of the High Court was accepted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, any interest earned by the assessee from the bank deposits or from deposits made which would not have a direct nexus with the business/industrial undertaking of the assessee cannot be an incidental income and such income has to be ignored for claiming benefits under Section 80-HH of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that source of import entitlements cannot be said to be the industrial undertaking of the assessee. The Court held that the source of import entitlement can, in the circumstances, only be said to be the Export Promotion Scheme of the Central Government where under the export entitlements become available. Therefore, there must be, for the application of the words ‘derived from’, a direct nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking. In the facts of the said case, it was held that a nexus was not direct, but only incidental. Hence, the benefit was not given.

As stated earlier, the wording in Section 80-HH of the I.T. Act and in Section 80(I) of the I.T. Act, are almost identical, in so far as the words in dispute. As stated earlier, the issue in the instant case is whether the interest paid by the customers for delayed payments on the supplies received by them will be liable for exemption or in other words whether it can be said that the profit or gain received has been derived from an industrial undertaking. Apart from that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to earlier, more particularly in Sterling Food Case, categorically observed that for application of the words ‘derived from’, a direct nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking has to be established. The instant case, is not one, where the interest received was incidental or ancillary to the deposit made. The interest received is a direct consequence of the goods supplied. The interest is directly relatable to the amounts received by the assesse during the course of its business on account of sale by the assessee to his customers.

The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court dealt with a fact situation where late payment was received by the assessee due to default of the customers. The assessee authority held that the same has nothing to do with the industrial undertaking or the manufacturing activity of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to include interest while computing the profits and accordingly granted relief under Section 80(I) of the I.T. Act. On Revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal disagreed with the view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Challenging the same, a writ petition came to be filed before the high court .

As stated earlier, the fact situation in the case on hand also relates to payment of interest on delayed the Gujarat High Court that there are two methods of realizing sale consideration, the object being to realise sale proceeds at the earliest and without delay. To avoid any loss to the assessee on account of the delayed payments, for the goods supplied, two contingencies can be stipulated(1) charging little higher rate or (2) collecting interest on delayed payments. By this, the transaction would not be incidental or different. In our view, it forms part of the same transaction as the amount due for the goods sold is being paid with some delay for which an interest is being collected.

Applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments to the case on hand, it is clear that there is direct nexus between the interest received, goods sold and the payments made including interest for the goods sold. Hence, it can be said that the profits and gains derived was from the business of the assessee and accordingly the interest received on delayed payments for the goods supplied/sold would be entitled to relief of exemption under Section 80(I) of the I.T. Act.

Conclusion

The appeal is allowed by the court.

Kanakadurga-Agro-Oil-Products-Limited-Vs-ACIT-Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to faceless complainces

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share
RSS
Follow by Email