Case: THE PEERLESS GEN.FIN AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED Vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

of India (1992) 75 Comp Cas 12, the Supreme Court on similar facts held that the deposits were capital receipts and not revenue receipts (vide paragraphs 67 & 68 of the aforesaid judgment). That case also pertains to a finance company which used to collect deposits, and credited part of its deposits to the profit and loss account, as in the present case. Hence, the ratio of the said decision, in our opinion, applies to this case also.It is well settled in income-tax law that book keeping entries are not decisive or determinative of the true nature of the entries as held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. India Discount Co. Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 191 and in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) . It has been held in those decisions that the court has to see the true nature of the receipts and not go only by the entry in the books of account.We agree with the Tribunal that these deposits are really capital receipts and not revenue receipts. In Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. V. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC) which was followed in Sinclair Murray and Co. P. Ltd. V. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 615 , the Supreme Court observed (page 619):?It is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under which it is entered in the account books that would prove decisive. If a receipt is a trading receipt, the fact that it is not so shown in the account books of the assessee would not prevent the assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt.It has been held by the Supreme court that the primary liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC).Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. In the present case there is no such finding that the deposit was forfeited or that at the end of the transaction the security deposit became the property of the assessee or that changed from a capital receipt to a revenue receipt. Hence, that decision is clearly distinguishable.?This Court, on 21.07.2015, in appeal against the said judgment held as under:"After reading of the decision of the High Court, we find that the High Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in ?Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India? (1992) 2 SCC 343. Since the case is squarely covered by the judgment, we do not find any merit in these appeals and petitions which are accordingly, dismissed.?It is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67. 11. Shri Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, however, strongly relied upon the observations in Ram Janki Devi and another v. M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat, (1971) 1 SCC 477. In particular, he relied upon paragraph 12 of the judgment which reads as follows:-?The case of a deposit is something more than a mere loan of money. It will depend on the facts of each case whether the transaction is clothed with the character of a deposit of money. The surrounding circumstances, the relationship and character of the transaction and the manner in which parties treated the transaction will throw light on the true form of the transaction.?12. This judgment has no direct relevance to the facts of the present case. The vexed question in that case was as to whether a particular transaction in question was a loan or a deposit. It was in that context that paragraph 12 laid down that whether a loan of money could be called a deposit, would depend upon the facts of each case, having regard to the surrounding circumstances etc. In the present case, there is no such question raised by Revenue. The question raised is completely different, and as has been held by us above, the character of the transaction being clearly a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee cannot possibly be taxed as income in the assessee?s hands.13. Shri Prasad then relied upon the judgment of this Court in Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I, Bombay, AIR 1966 SC 30 . In particular, he relied upon a quotation from a Bombay High Court judgment which was approved by this Court, as follows: -?The principle of real income is not to be subordinated as to amount virtually to a negation of it when a surrender or concession or rebate in respect of managing agency commission is made, agreed to or given on grounds of commercial expediency, simply because it takes place some time after the close of an accounting year. In examining any transaction and situation of this nature the court would have more regard to the reality and specialty of the situation rather than the purely theoretical or doctrinaire aspect of it. It will lay greater emphasis on the business aspect of the matter viewed as a whole when that can be done without disregarding statutory language.?The ?theoretical? aspect of the present transaction is the fact that the assessee treated subscription receipts as income. The reality of the situation, however, is that the business aspect of the matter, when viewed as a whole, leads inevitably to the conclusion that the receipts in question were capital receipts and not income.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. What is clear, even on general principle, on the facts of this case, is that subscriptions were received in the years in question from the public at large under a collective investment scheme, and these subscriptions were never at any point of time forfeited. Indeed, the supplementary affidavit filed before this Court states this as a fact, being based on an interim order of the High Court dated 03.09.1979 which obtained during the assessment years in question. This being the case, and surrendered certificates not being the subject-matter of the appeal before us, it is clear that even on general principles, deposits by way of amounts pursuant to these investment schemes made by subscribers which have never been forfeited can only be stated to be capital receipts.While it is true that there was no direct focus of the Court on whether subscriptions so received are capital or revenue in nature, we may still advert to the fact that this Court has also, on general principles, held that such subscriptions would be capital receipts, and if they were treated to be income, this would violate the Companies Act. It is, therefore, incorrect to state, as has been stated by the High Court, that the decision in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited (supra) must be read as not having laid down any absolute proposition of law that all receipts of subscription at the hands of the assessee for these years must be treated as capital receipts. We reiterate that though the Court?s focus was not directly on this, yet, a pronouncement by this Court, even if it cannot be strictly called the ratio decidendi of the judgment, would certainly be binding on the High Court. Even otherwise, as we have stated, it is clear that on general principles also such subscription cannot possibly be treated as income. Mr. Ganesh is right in stating that in cases of this nature it would not be possible to go only by the treatment of such subscriptions in the hands of accounts of the assessee itself.We agree with the Tribunal that these deposits are really capital receipts and not revenue receipts.is also correct to state that there can be no estoppel against a settled position in law [See Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. 29 ITR 661 at 665 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67.  This judgment has no direct relevance to the facts of the present case. The vexed question in that case was as to whether a particular transaction in question was a loan or a deposit. It was in that context that paragraph 12 laid down that whether a loan of money could be called a deposit, would depend upon the facts of each case, having regard to the surrounding circumstances etc. In the present case, there is no such question raised by Revenue. The question raised is completely different, and as has been held by us above, the character of the transaction being clearly a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee cannot possibly be taxed as income in the assessee?s?theoretical? aspect of the present transaction is the fact that the assessee treated subscription receipts as income. The reality of the situation, however, is that the business aspect of the matter, when viewed as a whole, leads inevitably to the conclusion that the receipts in question were capital receipts and not income.