9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 611 - HC - Income TaxProfession, Vocation - Income escaping assessment - Gift received from devotees - Business income or Capital receipt - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - Assessee as a religious head, is not involving himself in any profession or avocation and also not performing any religious rituals/poojas for his devotees for some consideration or other. In fact the Respondent/Assessee is doing charitable work and spiritualization and made his devotees to follow the same for the benefit of man kind. - Assessee s own case in Assessment year 1988-89, the Department has accepted the position that gifts received by him on birthdays and other occasions were not taxable. - ITAT is right in holding that gifts received on Assessee s birthday of Rs.1,75,70,347/- as Capital Receipt and having no nexus with his profession as vocation of religious practice is valid.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of gifts received by the Assessee as capital receipts. 2. Validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Taxability of Gifts as Capital Receipts: The primary issue was whether the gifts received by the Assessee on his birthday amounting to Rs.1,75,70,347/- should be considered as capital receipts and not taxable, or if they have a nexus with his profession as a religious head and thus taxable. The Assessee, believed to be an incarnation of Goddess Adhiparasakthi, received voluntary contributions from devotees on his birthday. The Assessee argued that these gifts were capital receipts, given out of personal esteem and veneration, and not connected to any profession or vocation. The Assessing Officer treated these gifts as professional income, arguing that the Assessee's status as a religious leader was the reason for receiving these gifts. This view was based on the premise that the Assessee's religious activities and the gifts received had a direct nexus, making them taxable income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal both rejected this view, holding that the gifts were voluntary and not connected to any professional or vocational activities. They relied on precedents such as the case of Sri Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal (231 ITR 632), where similar gifts were deemed non-taxable as they were given out of personal regard and not for any professional service. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Assessee was not engaged in any profession or vocation that would warrant the gifts being considered taxable income. The court noted that the gifts were given voluntarily by devotees out of love and veneration, without any compulsion or expectation of service, thus lacking the necessary nexus to be classified as income from a profession or vocation. 2. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147: The second issue was whether the reopening of the Assessee's assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act was valid, given that it was done within four years from the end of the assessment year. The Revenue argued that the reopening was based on valid reasons and was within the permissible time frame, thus not attracting the proviso to Section 147. They contended that the gifts received had not been properly scrutinized initially, justifying the reassessment. The High Court, however, focused on whether there was any new material or valid reason for reopening the assessment. The court found that the Assessee had disclosed all relevant facts during the original assessment, and there was no new information that warranted the reassessment. The court held that reopening the assessment on mere surmise without new material was not justified. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the gifts received by the Assessee were capital receipts and not taxable as income from a profession or vocation. The court also held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on mere surmise without new material. The court emphasized that the Assessee's activities did not constitute a profession or vocation, and the gifts were given voluntarily out of personal regard, thus not taxable.
|
