1987 (8) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the commission of Rs. 25,000 received by the assessee on the sale of shares of M/s. Universal Tyres Co. was exempt from tax u/s 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Exemption u/s 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Facts and Circumstances: The assessee, an individual, received Rs. 25,000 from Universal Tyres Ltd. for assisting in the sale of shares and setting up a factory. The assessee claimed this amount as exempt from tax u/s 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, asserting it was a casual and non-recurring receipt.

- Income-tax Officer's Decision: The Income-tax Officer rejected the exemption claim, holding that the amount was part of the assessee's regular business income and taxable. However, a 10% deduction was allowed as expenses, adding Rs. 22,500 to the assessee's income.

- Appellate Assistant Commissioner's Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the amount was for specific services rendered and constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, thus assessable.

- Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal reversed the previous decisions, holding that the receipt was casual and non-recurring, not arising from any business or profession, and thus exempt from tax. The Tribunal found no stipulation or understanding for the payment, which was made ex gratia.

- High Court's Analysis: The court examined whether the receipt was "income" or a "casual and non-recurring" receipt. The terms "casual" and "non-recurring" were interpreted based on their ordinary meaning and judicial precedents. The absence of any contract or obligation for the payment was crucial.

- Relevant Case Law: The court referred to *In re Mahammad Faruq [1938] 6 ITR 1 (All)* and *Rani Amrit Kunwar v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 561 (All)*, where similar payments were held as casual and non-recurring, thus exempt from tax.

- Conclusion: The court agreed with the Tribunal that the payment was a windfall or bounty, not arising from any business or profession of the assessee. The receipt was casual and non-recurring, exempt from tax u/s 10(3).

Issue 2: Applicability of Clause (ii) of the Proviso to Section 10(3)
- Analysis: The court examined whether the receipt arose from any business or profession of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's main income source was commission from Birla concerns, and he was not engaged in the business of selling shares or setting up factories.

- Conclusion: The court concluded that the receipt did not fall under clause (ii) of the proviso to section 10(3), as it did not arise from any business or profession of the assessee.

Final Decision:
The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Department was directed to pay the costs of the reference, assessed at Rs. 200 to the assessee.