9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the assessee arose out of the normal business as a broker or out of the distribution of capital assets of the firm or other association of persons within the meaning of s. 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was liable to be taxed as income which arose in the normal course of the assessee's business. 3. Whether any capital gains arose in view of section 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: The Tribunal held that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the assessee did not arise out of the normal business as a broker but out of the distribution of capital assets of the firm or other association of persons within the meaning of s. 47(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's system of accounting was mercantile, and he derived his income from the business as a broker of land and building. The agreement dated 15th October 1959, between the assessee and three others, was for the purchase and sale of premises No. 12-A and 12-B, Russel Street, Calcutta. The agreement was not a partnership agreement but a joint venture for one particular transaction. Due to differences, the assessee filed a suit for partition, which was settled on June 2, 1971, with the assessee receiving Rs. 1,00,000 in full and final settlement of all his claims. Issue 2: The ITO and AAC did not accept the assessee's contention and taxed the income, stating that the agreement was not a partnership deed and the receipt could not be a capital receipt on the dissolution of a non-existent partnership firm. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee's right to receive the sum arose from the compromise of the suit in 1971, not from services rendered as a broker. The Tribunal held that the receipt had no direct or indirect connection with the brokerage business and did not arise in the course of the normal business of the assessee. Issue 3: The Tribunal considered whether the receipt could be assessed as income from any other business activity under the agreement dated 15th October 1959. The Tribunal found that the agreement had elements of mutual agency and partnership, but since the venture did not succeed, the suit was filed to get the assessee's share, and the suit was settled. The Tribunal concluded that the amount could not be taxed as a revenue receipt. The Revenue's contention that the receipt was a transfer of a capital asset under s. 2(47) was not accepted, as there was no gain resulting from the transfer. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 was referenced, indicating that the computation of capital gains could not arise as the assessee had not paid any money for the asset. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that the sum could not be taxed as a revenue receipt or capital gain and answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. The parties were to bear their own costs.
|
