Introduction
In a significant ruling, DCIT v. Apex Fibre India Ltd.[i], the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench (‘ITAT’), a complex issue arose involving the classification of transactions related to high sea sales as being speculative transactions under s. 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). Consequently, concerns were raised regarding the set-off of speculative losses against interest income earned by Apex Fibre India Ltd. (‘Assessee’), a private limited company. The ruling also deals with another issue raised by the Assessee regarding the additions made by the assessing officer (‘AO’) under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act for the advances made by the Assessee to other parties without charging interest.
Brief Facts
The Assessee filed its return of income (‘ROI’) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2015-16 under s. 139(1) of the Act, disclosing a total income of Rs. 14,93,400 which was processed under s. 143(1) of the Act.
The AO reopened the case under s. 148 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee had entered into a speculative transaction within the meaning of s. 43(5) involving high sea palm oil sales, incurring a loss of Rs. 4.43 crores. This loss was set off against interest income of Rs. 4.59 crores earned by the Assessee during the year, which the AO claimed was not legally permissible under s. 73(1), resulting in the escapement of income.
The AO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 4.60 crores, disallowing the claim of adjustment of speculative loss of Rs. 4.43 crores.
On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) of Income Tax (‘CIT(A)’) deleted the addition of Rs. 4.43 crores, allowing the Assessee’s claim as business loss arising out of trading of edible oils on high sea sales, which was permitted to be set off against interest income earned during the year.
During the same A.Y., the Assessee had advanced to G H Crop Protection Pvt Ltd, Homeland Enclave Ltd, and J P Singh and Co. (‘three parties’) for commercial expediency. The AO added back an amount of Rs. 1,97,688 as interest on such advances under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, as no interest was charged by the Assessee on these advances, which were sustained by the CIT(A).
Both parties appealed to the ITAT: the revenue against deleting Rs. 4.43 crores, and the Assessee raised a cross-objection against adding Rs. 1.97 lakhs on interest.
The Assessee raised a cross-objection, arguing that the advances to G H Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. were business-related for material procurement, which was later refunded due to unavoidable circumstances. For Homeland Enclave Ltd. and J P Singh and Co., the advances were made using interest-free funds available with the Assessee. The Assessee also cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision, arguing that interest-free funds were sufficient to cover these investments.
Held
The ITAT ruled in favour of the Assessee. It dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and allowed the cross-objection raised by the Assessee.
The ITAT examined whether the transaction involved actual delivery of goods or was settled otherwise than by actual delivery. It observed that the Assessee’s business modus operandi, supported by written submissions and documentary evidence, indicated that the goods were actually delivered and taken physical delivery by the ultimate buyer at the port of arrival.
ITAT noted that the department did not dispute the documentary evidence or the factual sequence of events, which showed that the end-user took physical delivery after complying with all customs formalities. Therefore, it concluded that the transactions did not fall within the provisions of s. 43(5) of the Act and were not speculative transactions.
Regarding the advances to the three parties, the ITAT found no reason or material to disbelieve the figures in the audited balance sheet, noting the availability of unsecured interest-free loans. Thus, following the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.[ii], the ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 1,97,688 sustained by the CIT(A) under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Our Analysis
This decision clarifies the classification of high sea sales transactions under s. 43(5) of the Act. Under the Act, the term ‘speculation’ primarily focuses on whether transactions involve actual delivery, transfer, or settlement, which departs from its common meaning associated with risk-taking or gambling. Even if the goods or commodities involved are inherently speculative, the crucial factor remains the actual delivery. Despite the initial intentions differing from eventual outcomes, fulfilling physical delivery is essential.
This decision establishes that the actual physical delivery of goods in such transactions negates their classification as speculative. This interpretation is crucial for businesses engaged in high-sea sales, as it allows them to confidently classify these transactions as non-speculative, provided they can substantiate the physical delivery of goods with proper documentation.
This ruling is particularly important for businesses involved in merchanting trade (‘MT’), which involves the purchase of goods by an Indian company from a foreign seller and their sale to another foreign buyer without the goods physically entering India. In MT trade, the goods move directly from the seller’s country to the buyer’s country. This decision ensures that MT transactions would not be treated as speculative when supported by appropriate documentation of physical delivery (such as a Bill of Lading) and compliance with customs formalities. This provides much-needed certainty and protection for businesses operating in the MT sector, allowing them to engage in high-sea sales and similar transactions without the risk of adverse tax implications.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 163 taxmann.com 764 (Amritsar - Trib.).
[ii] 410 ITR 466.
Authored by Prashant Singh, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion
Comentários