1983 (11) TMI 92 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of income received by the assessee as long-term capital gain or business income.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bombay involved a dispute regarding the treatment of income of Rs. 61,000 received by the assessee, a firm dealing in dry fruits, during the assessment year 1981-82. The income in question arose from the "re-assignment of shop." The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated this income as business income, while the CIT (Appeals) directed it to be treated as long-term capital gain. The main contention raised in the appeal was whether the income should be classified as long-term capital gain or business income.

The facts of the case revealed that the assessee purchased a building near its shop, which was fully tenanted at the time of purchase. Subsequently, the assessee re-assigned two shops in the building to another party and received Rs. 61,000 as income from this transaction. The ITO argued that since there was no transfer of property ownership, the income should be considered business income. However, the CIT (Appeals) accepted the assessee's claim that the transaction involved the transfer of a capital asset, specifically the right of possession of the shops, resulting in long-term capital gains.

During the proceedings, the departmental representative relied on the ITO's reasons and cited a relevant provision of the Income Tax Act. On the other hand, the assessee contended that since the shops were not part of its stock-in-trade and were used for business purposes, the income should be treated as long-term capital gain. The Tribunal analyzed the intention behind the purchase of the building by the assessee and concluded that it was not to enter the real estate business but to extend its existing business of dry fruits by using the vacated shops.

The Tribunal held that the income from the transaction should be taxed as capital gains and not business income. It noted that the transaction involved the transfer of a capital asset and did not fall under the definition of profit or perquisite arising from the business. The Tribunal emphasized that the legal character of the transaction is not determined solely by the entry in the books of account, and in this case, the income was rightly classified as capital gains. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of treating the income as long-term capital gain.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the distinction between capital gains and business income in the context of a transaction involving the re-assignment of shops by the assessee, ultimately upholding the treatment of the income as long-term capital gain based on the nature of the transaction and the intention behind the purchase of the building.