Every suit for recovery of money from Sick Co. doesn't require prior permission of BIFR, rules HC

Facts:

a) The petitioner-company filed an application under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (‘SICA’) but same was dismissed by impugned order holding that a simple suit for recovery of moneys was not barred by section 22 of SICA.

b) The Trial court in the impugned order also recorded that in spite of repeated directions to the petitioner/defendant, no document was filed to show that the debt of the respondent/plaintiff was included in the scheme of rehabilitation of the petitioner-company

On writ, the High Court of Delhi held as under:

Since every suit for recovery of money does not require permission under section 22 of SICA and despite repeated directions of Court petitioner-company failed to show that debt of the respondent was included in scheme of rehabilitation, application filed by petitioner under section 22 of SICA was to be dismissed. - Kusum Products Ltd. v. Hitkari Industries Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 230 (Delhi)

Provision of suspension of legal proceedings under SICA prevails over provisions of debt recovery under RDDB Act

Section 22 of SICA covers and interdicts instances of application for recovery made under the provisions of the RDDB Act. Provisions of SICA, in particular section 22, shall prevail over provisions for recovery of debts in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (‘RDDB’).

Issues:

a)Whether as per bar contained in section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (‘SICA’), no recovery proceeding could be effected against defaulting-Company?

b)Since Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (‘RDDB’) was a subsequent enactment, whether provisions under sub-section (2) of section 34 of RDDB Act would have an overriding effect over other laws mentioned therein, including SICA?

The Supreme Court held as under:

1)Proceedings by way of an application for recovery according to a summary procedure as provided for under the RDDB Act are not referred to in Section 22 of SICA simply because the RDDB Act had not then been enacted.

2)Though the RDDB Act is the later enactment, sub-section (2) of Section 34 specifically provides that the provisions of the Act or the rules thereunder, shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the other laws mentioned therein including SICA.

3)Section 22 of SICA clearly covers and interdicts such an application for recovery made under the provisions of the RDB Act. Therefore, the provisions of SICA, in particular Section 22, shall prevail over the provision for the recovery of debts in the RDDB Act. – KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. V. ARIHANT THREADS LTD. [2014] 51 TAXMANN.COM 252 (SC)

ITAT deals with ‘booking’ amount paid to acquire a new house; distinguishes between Ownership and Investment

Booking of two residential houses before the date of transfer would not provide ownership rights to assessee, thus, he could not be deemed to be owning two residential houses on date of transfer.

Investment in new house by payment of booking amount would be deemed as valid investment for purposes of Section 54F relief.

The issues that arose before the Tribunal were as follows:

a)Whether assessee could be deemed to own two residential houses on date of transfer if he had only booked two residential houses?

b)Whether booking of residential flats could be deemed as investments for purposes of exemption under section 54F?

The Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:-

1)Proviso to Section 54F(1) provides that if assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset then he will not be entitled to exemption.

2)The meaning of term ‘owns’ used in proviso to section 54F has a different meaning. The owner here, means a legal owner who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. In the absence of possession, registration, title, etc., question of assessing ‘income from house property under section 22 of Income-tax Act (the Act) doesn’t arise.

3)When a flat is booked assessee has a ‘right to acquire’ and this right is not equivalent to ‘own’ a house. Therefore, by mere booking of flats, it could not be said that assessee had ownership of the flats. Thus, assessee did not own more than one residential house on the date of transfer of original asset.

4)With regard to purchase of new residential house, the provision does not lay down a condition that a new house should either be complete or it should be purchased as a complete habitable house. The aim is to direct the minds of the society towards purchasing new residential houses so that the menace of shortage of houses is tackled to some extent.

5)CBDT vide circular No. 471 dated 15/10/1986 and circular No. 672 dated 06/12/1993 had also clarified that the amount paid towards booking is to be treated for ‘construction’ for the purpose of section 54/54F.

6)Hence, owning of a residential house at the time of transfer of the original asset has different meaning and acquisition of new asset ‘which is equivalent to purchase of new residential house’ has entirely different meaning. The CIT(A) had misdirected himself in giving the same meaning to the residential house owned at the time of transfer of the original asset and the investment made out of the capital gain in the purchase or construction of new house, which has been defined as ‘new asset’ in the Act. Therefore, investment in new residential house by payment of booking amount only had to be allowed.- RAM PRAKASH MIYAN BAZAZ V. DY. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 550 (Jaipur - Trib.)