9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (8) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence are as follows : The petitioner, Shri Ghulam Hassan, assessee, filed the returns for the accounting year 1969-70 before the Income-tax Officer. The year of assessment is 1970-71. According to the returns filed by him he was charged tax at Rs. 8,161. In the returns filed, the assessee had showed the value of the sale of the route permit at Rs. 20,000. This route permit along with the truck was sold by him on May 20, 1969, to Shri Janki Nath and Sardar Jaswant Singh, C/o Messrs. Bharat Transport Company, Jammu (Tawi). The truck originally, a private carrier, was purchased by the assessee for Rs. 40,000 in May, 1965. He thereafter securing the requisite route permit converted it into a public carrier and after some time sold it for Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of' the Income-tax Act for making a reference to the High Court for seeking its opinion on the proposition of law, whether the sum of Rs. 20,000 received in consideration of the route permit was revenue income and liable to tax. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal acceded to the request of the assessee and has referred this question to this court. This is how the matter has come before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. R. N. Kaul appearing for the assessee has contended that the transaction of the sale of the route permit by the assessee was not in the line of the business of the assessee. It was not in the course of the business that he got the sum of Rs. 20,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is not revenue receipt. It is admitted before us that the vehicle before it was converted into a public carrier was used as a private carrier. When the vehicle was made a public carrier, the assessee obtained route permit for plying it on specified routes and on the strength of this route permit he earned profits in his business. He conducted his business transaction by putting the public carrier into use. Had the petitioner-assessee not been able to secure the route permit for his vehicle, it is clear that he could not have plied the vehicle on the specified route and could not have carried on business on those routes. When, therefore, the petitioner later on sold the route permit for a definite sum of money and this amount he earned by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
