TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... airly well-settled. This is also in accord with the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ajaz Products Ltd.(1964 (10) TMI 21 - SUPREME Court) that the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly says so. This view has been followed by the Tribunal in this case. One has to look merely at what is clearly said, nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, there being no room for any intendment, one can only look fairly at the language used. See CIT vs. Justice R.M. Datta of Calcutta High Court [1989 (7) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA High Court] We are further of the opinion that the view expressed by the Tribunal is in conformity with the opinion of several High Courts and its own Benches in different States; furthermore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as two judgments of this Court appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the appeal. Claiming to be aggrieved the revenue appealed to the ITAT, but without success. Revenue contends that the text and intention of section 176(4) is to bring to tax amounts received by an assessee from profession after discontinuance, given the deeming fiction under that section. 2. The CIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal took note of the contentions of the revenue and also of the previous decisions of various High Courts such as the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported as Commissioner of Income Tax V. Justice R.M.Datta [1989] 180 ITR 86 and that of the Punjab and Haryana High Court CIT V. Justice N.K. Sodhi decided on 14.11.2006 and anot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad. This is what is the purport of Section 4, the charging section, when it makes it mandatory for charge of income tax in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as noted above. 12. Now, it is trite law that where the language employed in a Section is clear, nothing other than the words used are to be read, permitting of nothing else to be read into the Section. This is more so in the case of a charging provision contained in a taxing statute, as is the case with Section 176 (4) of the IT Act, 1961. As considered in 'CIT vs. Justice R.M. Datta' (supra), in such a case, the rule of construction adopted by Rowlett J. in 'Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC',(1921) 1 KB 64 would be properly appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge under which such receipt would be made to fall. Thus, the express language of Section 176 (4) does not render the receipt to be treated as income chargeable under the head Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation. Now, the receipt in question cannot be brought to tax as income from Profits and Gains of Profession, as above, under the computation provisions contained in Sections 28 to 44-DB of the Act and if that be so, the receipts would not be included in the total income, as defined in Section 2 (45) of the Act (i.e., the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act), for the purpose of chargeability. Therefore, as held in 'Justice R.M. Datta' (supra), even in sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio in 'Nalinikant Ambalal Mody' (supra), despite the insertion of Section 176 (4) in the Act, since the assessee did not carry on any profession in the relevant previous year, the receipt cannot be taxed u/s 28 of the Act, since Section 176 (4) does not contain any deeming provision treating such receipt as income falling under the head Profits and Gains of Business, Profession or Vocation and also, it cannot be taxed as income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act. 3. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the previous rulings, judgments of this Court and the reasoning adopted and with the omission to carry forward things to bring to tax such amounts by indicating the relevant head of income under section 14, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
