Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

H. S. Ramchandra Rao vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 21, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 7, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 4/ 56: Amount received by assessee for relinquishing secretaryship of educational society cannot be treated as a capital receipt. The question of the principle of capital asset being invoked does not arise. The receipt is assessable as income from other sources. It may have been a different matter if it was a case of life time appointment of the assessee as Secretary of the concerned Institution but no such evidence was produced by the assessee (CIT vs. Ramachandra Rao 330 ITR 0322 affirmed)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8594/2010

H.S. RAMCHANDRA RAO APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
BANGALORE & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is essentially questioning the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below whether the amount received by the appellant in the sum of Rs.37,54,266/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Six only) is capital receipt or revenue receipt in the hands of the appellant.

3. The authorities below have concurrently found that going by the admission of the appellant, the amount received by the appellant cannot be treated as capital receipt but only as revenue receipt. For that, the authorities have relied on the statement given by the appellant dated 14.07.2000 as also the ground No.3 articulated by the appellant in the appeal filed before the first Appellate Authority.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. This appeal is dismissed.

7. No order as to costs.

8. All pending applications are also disposed of.

………………,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ………………,J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI)
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 21, 2019

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 8594/2010

H.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Appellant(s)

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 21-11-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Appellant(s) Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. R.K. Raghavan, Adv.

Mr. K.V. Balakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv.

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.

Ms. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

All pending applications are also disposed of.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*