9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration. B. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs.39,98,408/- when provisions of section 56 (2) (vi) were clearly applicable in the case of the assessee. C. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was justified in the deleting addition of Rs.39,98,408/- when the amount received was not from the relative (ex-spouse) of the assessee and hence falls in exceptions to charging of tax." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 23.07.2008 disclosing a total income of Rs.8,15,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed from the bank statement of assessee that there was a credit of Rs.39,98,408.60 equal into Rs.99,093.15US$. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The CIT (A) after going through the submissions of assessee deleted the addition by holding as under: "The word consideration has not been defined under the Income Tax Act therefore we need to verify its meaning from the law which govern principles of contract. Consideration has been defined u/s 2(d) of Indian Contract Act which inter-alia reads:- "That at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise." In Currie v. Misa [1875] LR 10 EX-153 the consideration was defined as "A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n received from the spouse of the individual and hence falls within the exception clause of relative. Therefore also clause (vi) of sub-section (2) section 56 is not applicable and amount received will not amount to income u/s 2(24) of Act." 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that payments in lieu of divorce were to be made in installments and there was no mention of lump-sum payment in the divorce agreement. He further argued that the divorce was executed in 1990 and the amount was received in the Financial Year 2007-08 in which year the assessee was not a wife of husband as the divorce had already taken place and, therefore, the amount received by her from him di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore, the assessee threatened to take legal action against husband who therefore, paid a lump-sum amount for settlement of all her claims against the husband. 10. The Ld. CIT (A) has held that amount was paid by way of alimony only because they were husband and wife and appellant was spouse of the person who has paid the amount and, therefore, payment received from spouse did fall within the definition of relative. The Ld. CIT (A) has also held that the amount was received against consideration of relinquishing her personal right of claiming monthly payments as provided under the divorce agreement. In the case law of Princes Maheshwari Devi relied by both Ld. Departmental Representative and Ld. AR, the Bombay High Court had held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
