2009 (8) TMI 13 - HC - Income Tax

Revenue Receipt Versus Capital Receipt Taxability u/s 28 or 56 - the appellant ventured to sell the shares of the other promoters of the Company assuring the agreed price and undertaking to compensate them in case the shares are sold less than the agreed price held that - it is evident that the appellant had played the roll in the overall equity shares diverting activity either directly or through broker for obtaining best price. Ultimately the venture proved that the appellant not only gained control of the mill but also received substantial amount. Therefore the profit on the sale of shares was a calculated move and it cannot be regarded as a wind fall. The surplus amount thus realised by the assessee is an income. If the assessee is not entitled to the surplus amount the amount certainly would have become taxable in the hands of the divesting promoters.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs.2,74,12,447/- received by the appellant is taxable as income.
2. Whether the receipt is capital in nature or a casual and non-recurring income.
3. Whether the transaction can be regarded as a trade.
4. Applicability of Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Interpretation of the term "income" under the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of the Sum Received:
The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs.2,74,12,447/- received by the appellant should be taxed as income. The Tribunal confirmed the assessment of this amount as income, which was contested by the appellant. The appellant argued that the receipt was capital in nature and not taxable.

2. Nature of the Receipt:
The appellant claimed that the receipt was capital in nature and not income. The assessing authority and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected this claim, treating the amount as taxable income. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the receipt could not be considered casual or non-recurring and was thus taxable.

3. Transaction as a Trade:
The appellant argued that the transaction should not be regarded as a trade. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellant's actions-such as entering into an Escrow agreement and marketing the shares-constituted a calculated business venture aimed at securing a profit. Hence, the transaction was deemed an adventure in the nature of trade.

4. Applicability of Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The respondent contended that under Section 56, any income not excluded under the Act is chargeable to tax under the head 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal agreed, stating that since the receipt did not fall under any specific exempted category, it was taxable under this section.

5. Interpretation of "Income":
The court emphasized that the term "income" under the Income Tax Act has a broad connotation, encompassing any profit or gain received. Citing various precedents, the court noted that income includes any receipt unless expressly exempted. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observation in CIT v. G. R. Karthikeyan, which stated that income is a word of the broadest connotation and includes any profit or gain.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's receipt was a calculated business venture and not a casual or capital receipt. The surplus realized was deemed income and thus taxable. The appeal was dismissed, and the question of law was answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. The court found no error or illegality in the Tribunal's order.

← Previous Next →