Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 184 - AT - Income TaxRevenue receipt v/s capital receipt - amount received at the time of execution of the sub lease - booking advances - Held that:- If a receipt is having a direct nexus with the acquisition of capital asset then the expenditure is capital in nature. Even if an amount is received against that capital asset then naturally such receipt is a capital receipt. A general Rule is that the amount received in lieu of a capital asset is a capital receipt and if an amount is received in lieu of circulating capital/stock-in-trade then it is a Revenue receipt. A compensation in lieu of a profit is a Revenue receipt but if the source of the profit is completely parted then such a gain is a capital receipt. Likewise if a receipt is towards a loss of earning or business or relinquishment of rights, prima facie, it takes a character of a capital receipt. As far as present appeal is concerned the amount received at the time of execution of the sub lease is concerned, the same is definitely in the nature of capital receipt. Specially when the Assessee has incurred a huge amount of ₹ 38.5 crore for acquiring the lease rights from GIDC. The said lease amount was to be recovered from the members joining the scheme by sub leasing the land to them. Upto this extent, we hereby hold that the Assessee was required to demonstrate by a separate account in its books to “earmark” the amount received against the sub lease from the members of the scheme. This fact still can be verified by perusing the sub lease agreements. Otherwise also the admitted factual position is that the Assessee was receiving ₹ 8 lac from each member on granting sub lease to them. Therefore there should not be any defect in ascertaining the year-wise sub lease amount received by this Assessee. Whether the “principle of mutuality” shall apply on the present set of facts - Held that:- We are not in agreement with the contentions of learned A.R. because of the simple reason that the principle of mutuality is based upon the concept of sharing the expenditure as well as sharing the profits. In the present case, nowhere it was demonstrated that the surplus, if any generated from the running of the scheme, shall be distributed amongst the members of the scheme. In the absence of such evidence we hereby hold that the principle of mutuality shall not apply on this Assessee. The basic principle is that the unaccounted income should be taxed in the hands of the Assessee on the basis of the incriminating material unearthed at the time of search or survey. However, in this case no lease was executed during the assessment year 2010-11, but the AO has taxed ₹ 11.27 crore. If we apply the principle of natural justice then the unaccounted income should be taxed on the basis of the incriminating material found. Because of this reason, we hereby direct the AO to restrict the assessment only to the extent the incriminating material found as per survey and not to extrapolate. Therefore, the part relief granted by learned CIT(A) was merely on the basis of a hypothecation that against 94 plots a proportionate expenditure might have been incurred. Such hypothecation cannot be upheld especially when the Assessee is in a position to demonstrate the year-wise financial position. Resultantly, grounds raised against the part relief by both the sides are hereby set aside back to the stage of the AO to be decided de novo as per the directions.- Decided in favour of Assessee and the Revenue allowed for statistical purpose.
|