TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d simply collected the money and paid the same back to the State Government, although the assessee did not itself leave the coupe to others, as the lease was given by the State Government prior to 15-12-1977 ? " We have heard Shri D. K. Talukdar for the Revenue and Shri A. K. Saraf, for the respondent, M/s. Arunachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Ltd. The respondent-Corporation came into existence on March 31, 1977, having been created by the Arunachal Pradesh Government. There was an understanding between the State Government and the Corporation on December 15, 1977, whereby the operation, management, maintenance and collection of revenue of the forest was transferred to the Corporation and vested in the Corporation. The written agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gross receipts of Rs. 30,18,550.67 minus operational cost incurred during the assessment year. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Tribunal took the view that the kist money due till December 15, 1977, under the old transactions entered into by the State Government belonged to the State Government and that the Corporation had no right over it and that the Corporation's right is restricted to a percentage of the receipt of the kist money falling due only after December 15, 1977. Therefore, these authorities held that no percentage of Rs. 24,02.920.43 can be regarded as income of the Corporation for the assessment year 1978-79. Under the two agreements filed along with the order of reference, the forest area spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Income-tax Officer itself would indicate that going by the accounts of the Corporation, this amount had been handed over to the State Government. In these circumstances, there is no illegality in the finding of the Tribunal that the receipt of Rs. 24,02,920.43 by the Corporation was as agent of the State Government and that this amount or any fraction thereof could not be treated as income of the Corporation for the relevant assessment year and is not to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment and order under the seal of this High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
