Case: Hoshiarpur Electric Supply Co Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Simla

is used for supplying electrical energy remains an integral part of the distributing mains of an electrical undertaking. The High Court was exercising advisory jurisdiction, and the question as to who was the owner of the service lines after they were installed could be adjudicated upon only by the Tribunal. It was for the Tribunal to record its conclusion on that question, but the Tribunal has recorded none. In our judgment, the High Court was in error in assuming to itself jurisdiction substantially appellate in character and in proceeding to decide the question as to ownership of the service lines which is a mixed question of law and fact, on which the Tribunal has given no finding.7. The assessee contended that the amount paid by the consumers for new connections is capital receipt and not liable to tax, because the amount is paid by the consumers towards expenditure to be incurred by the assessee in laying new service lines - an asset of a lasting character. This question falls to be determined in the light of the nature of the receipt irrespective of who remained owner of the materials of the service lines installed for granting electrical connections of new customers.8. The assessee only spends a part of the amount received by it from the consumers. It is not clear from the statement of the case whether amongst the 229 new connections given, there were any which were of a length less than 100 ft. Payments received by the assessee must of course be for service lines installed of length more than 100 ft., but it is not clear on the record whether the expenditure of Rs. 5,929 incurred by the assessee is only in respect of service lines which exceeded 100 ft. in length or it is expenditure incurred in respect of all service lines. It is however not disputed that a part of the amount received from the consumers remains with the assessee after meeting the expenses incidental to the construction of service lines. But an electric service line requires constant inspection and occasional repairs and replacement and expenses in this behalf have to be undertaken by the assessee. The amount contributed by the consumer for obtaining a new connection would of necessity cover all those services. The amount contributed by the consumer is in direct recoupment of the expenditure for bringing into existence an asset of a lasting character enabling the assessee to conduct its business of supplying electrical energy. By the installation of the service lines, a capital asset is brought into existence. The contribution made by the consumers is substantially as consideration for a joint adventure; the service line when installed becomes an appanage of the mains of the assessee, and by the provisions of the Electricity Act, the assessee is obliged to maintain it in proper repairs for ensuring efficient supply of energy. The assumption made by the Department that the excess remaining in the hands of the assessee, after defraying the immediate cost of installation of a service line must be regarded as a trading profit of the company is not correct. The assessee is undoubtedly carrying on the business of distributing electrical energy to the consumers. Installation of service lines is not an isolated or casual act; it is an incident of the business of the assessee. But if the amount contributed by the consumers for installation of what is essentially reimbursement of capital expenditure, the excess remaining after expending the costs of installation out of the amount contributed is not converted into a trading receipt. This excess - which is called by the Tribunal "profit element" - was not received in the form of profit of the business; it was part of a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, and it was not converted into a trading profit because the assessee was engaged in the business of distribution of electrical energy, with which the receipt was connected.9. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd., 1946-14 ITR 622 : (AIR 1947 Bom 263), it was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that the amount received from the Government of Bombay by the Poona Electric Company in reimbursement of expenses incurred for constructing new supply lines for supplying energy to new areas not previously served, was a capital receipt and not a trade receipt. The question of the taxability of the "profit element" in the contribution received from the Government was not expressly determined; but the court in that case held that the entire amount received by the Poona Electric Company from the Government as contribution was a capital receipt.10. In Monghyr Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Monghyr v. Commissioner of Income-tax, B. and O., 1954-26 ITR 15 : (AIR 1954 Pat 471 ), it was held that the amount paid by consumers of electricity for meeting the cost of service connections was a capital receipt in the hands of the electricity undertaking and not revenue receipt and the difference between the amount received on account of service connection charges and the amount immediately not expended was not taxable as revenue.11. The receipts though related to the business of the assessee as distributors of electricity were not indicental to nor in the course of the carrying on of the assessees business; they were receipts for bringing into existence capital of lasting value. Contributions were not made merely for services rendered and to be rendered but for installation of capital equipment under an agreement for a joint venture. The total receipts being capital receipts the fact that in the installation of capital, only a certain amount was immediately expended, the balance remaining in hand, could not be regarded as profit in the nature of a trading receipt. On that view of the case, in our judgment, the High Court was in error in holding that the excess of the receipts over the amount expended for installation of service lines by the assessee was a trading receipt.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]8. The assessee only spends a part of the amount received by it from the consumers. It is not clear from the statement of the case whether amongst the 229 new connections given, there were any which were of a length less than 100 ft. Payments received by the assessee must of course be for service lines installed of length more than 100 ft., but it is not clear on the record whether the expenditure of Rs. 5,929 incurred by the assessee is only in respect of service lines which exceeded 100 ft. in length or it is expenditure incurred in respect of all service lines. It is however not disputed that a part of the amount received from the consumers remains with the assessee after meeting the expenses incidental to the construction of service lines. But an electric service line requires constant inspection and occasional repairs and replacement and expenses in this behalf have to be undertaken by the assessee. The amount contributed by the consumer for obtaining a new connection would of necessity cover all those services. The amount contributed by the consumer is in direct recoupment of the expenditure for bringing into existence an asset of a lasting character enabling the assessee to conduct its business of supplying electrical energy. By the installation of the service lines, a capital asset is brought into existence. The contribution made by the consumers is substantially as consideration for a joint adventure; the service line when installed becomes an appanage of the mains of the assessee, and by the provisions of the Electricity Act, the assessee is obliged to maintain it in proper repairs for ensuring efficient supply of energy. The assumption made by the Department that the excess remaining in the hands of the assessee, after defraying the immediate cost of installation of a service line must be regarded as a trading profit of the company is not correct. The assessee is undoubtedly carrying on the business of distributing electrical energy to the consumers. Installation of service lines is not an isolated or casual act; it is an incident of the business of the assessee. But if the amount contributed by the consumers for installation of what is essentially reimbursement of capital expenditure, the excess remaining after expending the costs of installation out of the amount contributed is not converted into a trading receipt. This excess - which is called by the Tribunal "profit element" - was not received in the form of profit of the business; it was part of a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, and it was not converted into a trading profit because the assessee was engaged in the business of distribution of electrical energy, with which the receipt was connected.The receipts though related to the business of the assessee as distributors of electricity were not indicental to nor in the course of the carrying on of the assessees business; they were receipts for bringing into existence capital of lasting value. Contributions were not made merely for services rendered and to be rendered but for installation of capital equipment under an agreement for a joint venture. The total receipts being capital receipts the fact that in the installation of capital, only a certain amount was immediately expended, the balance remaining in hand, could not be regarded as profit in the nature of a trading receipt. On that view of the case, in our judgment, the High Court was in error in holding that the excess of the receipts over the amount expended for installation of service lines by the assessee was a trading receipt.