Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"8. In the present case, from the reading of the above clauses of the agreement the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years i.e. 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Further the formula prescribed in the agreement itself makes it clear that the deferred consideration to be received by the respondent-assessee in the four years would be dependent upon the profits made by M/s. Unisol in each of the years. Thus in case M/s. Unisol does not make net profit in terms of the formula for the year under consideration for payment of deferred consideration then no amount would be payable to the respondent-assessee as deferred consideration. The consideration of Rs. 20 crores is not an assured consideration to be received by the Shete family. It is only the maximum that could be received. Therefore it is not a case where any consideration out of Rs. 20 crores or part thereof (after reducing Rs. 2.70 crores) has been received or has accrued to the respondent-assessee. As observed by the Apex Court in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT,(1971) 82 ITR 835. "The income can be said to accrue when it becomes due.... The moment the income accrues, the assessee gets vested right to claim that amount, even though not immediately ." In fact the application of formula in the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 itself makes the amount which is receivable as deferred consideration contingent upon the profits of M/s. Unisol and not an ascertained amount. Thus in the subject assessment year no right to claim any particular amount gets vested in the hands of the respondent-assessee. Therefore, entire amount of Rs. 20 crores which is sought to be taxed by the Assessing Officer is not the amount which has accrued to the respondent-assessee. The test of accrual is whether there is a right to receive the amount though later and such right is legally enforceable. In fact as observed by the Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 "It is clear therefore that income may accrue to an assesee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he 1 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16142 31 July, 2024 12-ITXA-1585-18.DOC must have acquired a right to receive the income. There must be a debt owed to him by somebody. There must be as is otherwise expressed debitum in presenti, solvendum in futuro .... .... ....". In this case all the co-owners of the shares of M/s. Unisol have no right in the subject assessment year to receive Rs. 20 crores but that is the maximum which could be received by them. This amount which could be received as deferred consideration is dependent/contingent upon certain uncertain events, therefore, it cannot be said to have accrued to the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal in the impugned order has correctly held that what has to be taxed is the amount received or accrued and not any notional or hypothetical income. As observed by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shoorji Vallabdas and Co., (1962) 46 ITR 144 "Income-Tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income-Tax Act takes into account two points of time at which liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of its income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is income, if income does not result, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-keeping an entry is made about a hypothetical income, which does not materialize. " In this case Rs. 20 crores cap in the agreement is not income in the subject assessment year. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income-Tax Officer, Ernakulam, 181 ITR 597 that one has to read capital gain provision along with computation provision and the starting point of the computation is "the full value of the consideration received or accruing". In this case the amount of Rs. 20 crores is neither received nor it has accrued to the respondent-assessee during the subject assessment year. We are informed that for the subsequent assessment year (save Assessment Year 2007-2008 for which there is no deferred consideration on application of formula), the Assessee has offered to tax the amounts which have been received on the application of formula provided in the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 pertaining to the transfer of shares.

9. The contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-2007 as the same has not accrued during the year. As pointed out above, accrual would be a right to receive the amount and the respondent-assessee alongwith its co-owners have not under the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 obtained a right to receive Rs. 20 crores or any specified part thereof in the subject assessment year."