9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nhancement was with retrospective effect, in our considered view, does not alter the situation as retrospectivity is with regard to the right to receive rent with effect from an anterior date. The right, however, came to be vested only in the year 1994. In the light of the foregoing discussions, it has to be held that the notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1989-1990 is without jurisdiction and authority of law. The said notice, therefore, is liable to be interfered with and the order of the High Court set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal No(S) 4091 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)No(s)6384 of 2009) - - - Dated:- 19-4-2016 - MR. RANJAN GOGOI AND MR. PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by letter dated 30.03.1994. 5. The contention of the assessee before us is that having regard to the provisions of Section 5, 22 and 23 of the Act and the decision of this Court in 'E.D. Sassoon Company Ltd. And Others vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax', (1954) 26 ITR 27, no income accrued or arose and no annual value which is taxable under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act was received or receivable by the assessee at any point of time during the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1989-1990. Hence, the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment in question is without jurisdiction or authority of law. 6. To controvert the aforesaid contention on behalf of the appellant-assessee the respondent-Revenue contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of regularity, or expected regularity from definite sources. The source is not necessarily one which is expected to be continuously productive, but it must be one whose object is the production of a definite return, excluding anything in the nature of a mere windfall. Mukerji, J., has defined these terms in Rogers Pyatt Shellac Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1925) 1 I.T.C. 363 at 371 Now what is income ? The term is nowhere defined in the Act.....In the absence of a statutory definition we must take its ordinary dictionary meaning -'that which comes in as the periodical produce of one's work, business, lands or investments (considered in reference to its amount and commonly expressed in terms of money); annu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Act and perhaps the two words seem to denote the same idea or ideas very similar, and the difference only lies in this that one is more appropriate than the other when applied to particular cases. It is clear, however, as pointed out by Fry, L.J. in Colquhoun v. Brooks (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 52 at 59, [this part of the decision not having been affected by the reversal of the decision by the House of Lords] that both the words are used in contradistinction to the word 'receive' and indicate a right to receive. They represent a stage anterior to the point of time when the income becomes receivable and connote a character of the income which is more or less inchoate. One other matter need be referred to in connection with the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1950) S.C.R. 335 at 389 : 18 I.T.R. 472 , where this passage from the judgment of Mukerji J. in Rogers Pyatt Shellac Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1925) 1 I.T.C. 365 at 372 , is approved and adopted. It is clear therefore that income may accrue to an assesee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to receive the income. There must be a debt owed to him by somebody. There must be as is otherwise expressed debitum in presenti, solvendum in futuro; See W. S. Try Ltd. v. Johnson (Inspector of Taxes (1946) 1 All E.R. 53 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
