2019 (12) TMI 268 - SC - Income Tax

Characterization of income - revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT - The substance of the admission is that the appellant was holding the post of Secretary of the Institution Paramahamsa Foundation (R) Trust until 1996 but he left the institution after new members were elected as the managing committee. That being the case, the question of appellant invoking the principle of capital asset does not arise. It may have been a different matter if it was a case of life time appointment of the appellant as Secretary of the concerned Institution. No such evidence was produced by the appellant before the assessing officer or before us. Taking over-all view of the matter, we uphold the conclusion reached by the High Court that the amount received in the hands of appellant-assessee cannot be treated as capital receipt. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer is affirmed. Hence, no interference is warranted in this appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Questioning whether the amount received is a capital or revenue receipt in the hands of the appellant.

Analysis:
The main issue in this appeal was to determine whether the amount of ?37,54,266 received by the appellant constituted a capital or revenue receipt. The lower authorities had already found that based on the appellant's admission, the amount should be treated as a revenue receipt. The appellant had admitted to leaving the institution after new members were elected to the managing committee, indicating that the amount received was not related to a capital asset. The courts noted that there was no evidence presented to suggest a lifetime appointment for the appellant as the Secretary of the institution, further supporting the conclusion that the amount was a revenue receipt.

The courts upheld the findings of the High Court that the amount received by the appellant could not be considered a capital receipt. It was emphasized that the appellant's departure from the institution after new members were elected as the managing committee was crucial in determining the nature of the receipt. The absence of evidence supporting a lifetime appointment as Secretary also played a significant role in affirming that the amount was a revenue receipt. Consequently, the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment confirmed that the amount received by the appellant was a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt. The decision was based on the appellant's admission and the circumstances surrounding the appellant's departure from the institution. The lack of evidence supporting a different interpretation further solidified the court's ruling. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of without any further interference warranted.