9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Nature of lump sum receipts as capital or revenue receipts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal: The first issue was whether the appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was validly presented. The Tribunal had held that the appeal was not validly presented because it was filed in the name of the deceased assessee, Rajah Manyam Kanakayya, and signed by his power of attorney agent without indicating the death of the assessee or bringing the legal representative on record. The Court analyzed Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act, which governs the right of appeal from the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was noted that "assessee" includes a legal representative liable to pay tax from the estate of a deceased person. The widow of the deceased, Meenakshamma, being the legal representative, was an assessee within the meaning of the Act and entitled to file an appeal. The Court found that the memorandum of appeal, although in the name of the deceased, was substantively presented by the legal representative through her power of attorney agent. The description was due to a mistake, and the memorandum could be treated as filed by the legal representative herself. Thus, the Court concluded that the memorandum of appeal was duly presented to the Tribunal. 2. Nature of Lump Sum Receipts as Capital or Revenue Receipts: The second issue was whether the lump sum receipts of Rs. 23,000 and Rs. 12,000 received as consideration for granting mining rights for 25 and 30 years, respectively, were capital receipts and should not have been assessed to Income-tax. The Court reviewed several precedents to determine the nature of such receipts. It cited cases where payments labeled as "salami" or "premium" were considered capital receipts because they represented the price for parting with a capital interest in the land. For instance, in the case of Rajah Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh, the Judicial Committee held that salami was a capital receipt as it was a single payment for the acquisition of the lessee's right to enjoy the benefits of the lease, which was a capital asset. However, the Court noted that the term "royalty" generally refers to rent for the occupation of working out mines and is considered a revenue receipt. The Court emphasized that the intention of the parties, as evidenced by the lease documents, indicated that the lump sum payments were advance payments of amounts that would otherwise be periodically paid as rent. The leases were for 25 and 30 years, and the lump sum payments were reasonable yearly rents for the occupation of the mines. The Court also observed that the assessee himself had included the proportionate lease amounts for one year in his income return for the relevant year, indicating his understanding that the payments were taxable income. Therefore, the Court agreed with the Tribunal that the amounts in question represented revenue receipts and were not proceeds of the capital interest parted with by the lessor. Conclusion: The Court answered the first question in the affirmative, confirming that the appeal was validly presented, and the second question in the negative, holding that the lump sum receipts were revenue receipts and assessable to Income-tax. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 250.
|
