SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1142

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
M/S P.G.& W.SAWOO PVT.LTD.& ANR. - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 4091 OF 2016
Decided on : 19-04-2016

The right to receive income must be vested in the assessee for it to be taxable.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act - Validity of Notice under Section 148 - Sections 22, 23 - Summary of the judgment

Fact of the Case:

The court considered the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking to reopen the concluded assessment of the appellant-assessee for the assessment year 1989-1990.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notice seeking to reopen the assessment was without jurisdiction and authority of law, as the right to receive the rent did not accrue to the assessee during the assessment year in question.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 1989-1990.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act and the decision in 'E.D. Sassoon & Company Ltd. And Others vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax' to determine that the right to receive the income must be vested in the assessee for it to be taxable.

Final Decision: The court set aside the notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1989-1990, holding it to be without jurisdiction and authority of law.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.

3. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal is the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (for short, 'the Act') seeking to reopen the concluded assessment of the appellant-assessee for the assessment year 1989-1990 (for the period of 21 months commencing on 01.07.198 and ending on 31.03.1989).

4. The income in question being income from house property is liable to be computed in accordance with the provision of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. The premises belonging to the appellant was let out on rent to the Government of India. The rent was enhanced from Rs.4.00 to Rs.8.11 per sq.ft. per month effective from 01.09.1987. The said enhancement of rent was made by a letter dated 29.03.1994 of the Estate Manager of the Government of India. The said letter makes it clear that the enhancement was subject to conditions including execution of a fresh lease agreement and communication of acceptance of the conditions incorporated therein. Such acceptance was communicated by the appellant 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 contends before us that the enhancement of rent is retrospective i.e. from 01.09.1987 and, therefore, the income must have to be understood to have been received in the said assessment year i.e. 1989-1990.

7. The issue is capable of resolution within a short compass. A reading of the decision of this Court in E.D. Sassoon (supra) would go to show that the income to be chargeable to tax must accrue or arise at any point of time during the previous year. This Court in E.D. Sassoon (supra) has held in categorical terms that income can be said to have accrued or arisen only when a right to receive the amount in question is vested in the appellant-assessee. The following extract from the judgment in E.D. Sassoon (supra) amply illustrates the above position :

“The word "earned" has not been used in Section 4 of the Income-tax Act. The section talks of "income, profits and gains" from whatever source derived which (a) are received by or on behalf of the assessee, or

(b) accrue or arise to the assessee in the taxable territories during the chargeable accounting period. Neither the word "income" nor the words "is received", "accrues" and "arises" have been defined in the Act. The Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal v. Shaw Wallace & Co., (1932) I.L.R. 59 Cal. 1343 at 1352 attempted a definition of the term “income” in the words following :-

"Income, their Lordships think, in the Indian Income-tax Act, connotes a periodical monetary return 'coming in' with some sort 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 investm







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top