9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... works. It had entered into contract for loading, transport and reloading of limestones in railway wagons with the Rourkela Steel Plant. It issued notices on August 5, 1976, intimating its desire to retrench the notice workers with effect from November 15, 1976. This arrangement was accepted by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by letter of the Under Secretary, dated November 10, 1976. The background for such notices appears to be the apprehended liability to pay gratuity to the workers if they continued in employment beyond November 15, 1976. Because a drought situation existed in the district of Sundargarh in the State of Orissa, correspondence was made by the management of the Rourkela Steel Plant with the assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income and that it was acting as a mere custodian of the amount of Rourkela Steel Plant. He, therefore, treated it as the assessee's income. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the stand of the assessee and deleted the addition. The Revenue moved the Tribunal in second appeal. The Tribunal, being of the opinion that the payment having been received by the assessee, the manner in which the same was recorded in the accounts was not conclusive and, accordingly, allowed the appeal. On hearing Mr. G. Rath for the assessee arid Mr. R. P. Kar for the Department, we are of the view that the approach of the Tribunal was not correct. The Tribunal did not refer to the various factual aspects highlighted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concept of income. There must be a right to receive the income or the income must have accrued to it. A mere claim to entitlement without adjudication of its payability cannot be treated to be a right to receive the amount (CIT. v Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC)). These circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee had no right to receive the amount. On the other hand, it was disputing the quantum and was insisting that, if there was any liability, the same was of the Rourkela Steel Plant. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the amount in question constituted the income of the assessee. Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
