9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order passed under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. Whether the amount received by the assessee under the Restrictive Covenant Agreement was taxable as revenue receipt or capital receipt. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the order passed under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue: The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, asserting that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the taxability of the receipt of Rs. 4.71 crores in the hands of the assessee. The assessee argued that the AO had already examined the issue in detail during the assessment proceedings and concluded that the amount received by the assessee under the Restrictive Covenant Agreement was a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. The CIT's contention was that the AO should have taxed the amount in the hands of the assessee or at least on a protective basis to safeguard the revenue's interest. 2. Whether the amount received by the assessee under the Restrictive Covenant Agreement was taxable as revenue receipt or capital receipt: The assessee received Rs. 4.71 crores under a Restrictive Covenant Agreement with M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling Ltd. (HCCBL) for agreeing not to sell aerated beverages or disclose any business know-how. The assessee claimed this amount as a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. The AO, after raising multiple queries and considering detailed submissions from the assessee, concluded that the amount was a capital receipt and not taxable under section 28 of the Income-tax Act. The AO's conclusion was based on various judicial pronouncements, including decisions from the Supreme Court, which held that compensation attributable to restrictive covenants was a capital receipt. The CIT, however, argued that the AO's finding that the amount was taxable in the hands of SBL (the employer of the assessee) was incorrect and that the AO should have taxed the amount in the hands of the assessee. The CIT's order under section 263 was challenged by the assessee, who relied on multiple judicial decisions to support the view that the amount received under the Restrictive Covenant Agreement was a capital receipt. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal noted that the AO had considered the taxability of the receipt in the hands of the assessee and concluded, based on Supreme Court decisions, that it was not taxable as a revenue receipt. The CIT did not prove this finding to be incorrect. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., which held that when two views are possible, and the AO has adopted one view, the order cannot be considered erroneous unless it is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's view was one of the possible views supported by judicial pronouncements and that the CIT's disagreement with the AO's view did not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under section 263 and restored the original assessment order dated 31st December 2002. Case of Smt. Kishori R. Mody: In a similar case involving Smt. Kishori R. Mody, who received Rs. 1 crore under a Restrictive Covenant Agreement, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning and conclusions as in the case of Shri Ravi K. Mody. Both parties agreed that the facts and arguments were identical. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under section 263 and restored the original assessment order dated 31st December 2002. Conclusion: In both cases, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, holding that the assessment orders were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The amounts received under the Restrictive Covenant Agreements were considered capital receipts, not chargeable to tax.
|
