H.S. Ramchandra Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore & Anr
[Citation -2019-LL-1121-44]

Citation 2019-LL-1121-44
Appellant Name H.S. Ramchandra Rao
Respondent Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore & Anr.
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/11/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags capital receipt • revenue receipt • capital asset
Bot Summary: 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/- is capital receipt or revenue receipt in the hands of the appellant. The authorities below have Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2019.11.28 10:04:35 IST Reason: concurrently found that going by the admission of the appellant, the amount received by the 2 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. The substance of the admission is that the appellant was holding the post of Secretary of the Institution Paramahamsa Foundation 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.


1 IN 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) ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. issue involved in this appeal is essentially questioning finding of fact recorded by authorities below whether amount received by appellant in 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 hands of appellant. Signature Not Verified 3. authorities below have Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2019.11.28 10:04:35 IST Reason: concurrently found that going by admission of appellant, amount received by 2 appellant cannot be treated as capital receipt but only as revenue receipt. For that, authorities have relied on statement given by appellant dated 14.07.2000 as also ground No.3 articulated by appellant in appeal filed before first Appellate Authority. 4. substance of admission is that appellant was holding post of Secretary of Institution [Paramahamsa Foundation (R) Trust] until 1996 but he left institution after new members were elected as managing committee. That being case, question of appellant invoking principle of capital asset does not arise. It may have been different matter if it was case of life time appointment of appellant as Secretary of concerned Institution. No such evidence was produced by appellant before assessing officer or before us. 5. Taking over-all view of matter, we uphold conclusion reached by High Court that amount received in hands of 3 appellant-assessee cannot be treated as capital receipt. Thus, order of 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 4 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV-A SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 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 counsel Court made following ORDER appeal is dismissed in terms of signed order. All pending applications are also disposed of. (NEETU KHAJURIA) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on file.) H.S. Ramchandra Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore & Anr
Report Error