- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lal Umesh Bahadur Pal And Others v. Cit, U.P, Lucknow .
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter arose from a reference to the High Court on whether a sum of Rs 64,020 was assessable as income of the assessee for Assessment Year 1956-57. The Tribunal answered the referred question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The High Court reversed the Tribunal and answered in favour of the Department. The present appeal challenged the High Court’s answer.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted rightly in holding that the sum of Rs 64,020 was not assessable as income of the assessee in Assessment Year 1956-57.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Income tax, Central Calcutta v. Amalgamated Development Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1475 | Amounts of consideration not actually received in the relevant assessment period, though agreed to be paid in future and secured by mortgage, could not be treated as revenue receipts for that period; taxation is on actual cash realisations. | The Court held that this ruling “completely covers the facts of this case,” and therefore the High Court’s conclusion (that Rs 64,020 was assessable) was “clearly wrong.” |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court focused on the correctness of the High Court’s reversal of the Tribunal. It held that the High Court’s answer was “clearly wrong” because the issue was governed by this Court’s earlier decision in Commissioner of Income tax, Central Calcutta v. Amalgamated Development Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 1475). In that precedent, the Court ruled that consideration not actually received by the assessee during the relevant assessment periods—even if purchasers had agreed to pay in future and had mortgaged lands as security—could not be treated as revenue receipts for those periods; the assessee was taxable only on actual cash realisations. Applying that principle, the Court concluded that the facts of the present case were fully covered by the precedent and, accordingly, the High Court’s answer could not stand.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED. The High Court’s answer was discharged and replaced with an answer in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The Department was directed to pay the costs of the appeal to the assessee.
The direct implication is that the sum of Rs 64,020 was held not assessable as income of the assessee for Assessment Year 1956-57 in the present reference. The decision applies an existing Supreme Court precedent and does not indicate that any new legal principle was laid down.
K.S Hegde, J.— The question referred to the High Court for its decision is:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal acted rightly in holding that the sum of Rs 64,020 was not assessable as income of the assessee in Assessment Year 1956-57.”
The Tribunal answered that question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The High Court reversed that conclusion. It answered the question in favour of the Department. The decision of the High Court must be held to be clearly wrong. See the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income tax, Central Calcutta v. Amalgamated Development Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1475 In that case this Court ruled “that the amount of the consideration not received by the assessee but which the purchasers agreed to pay in future and for which lands were mortgaged by them in favour of the assessee, could not be considered to be revenue receipts for the assessment periods, and the assessee was liable to be taxed only on the actual realisations in cash”. This decision completely covers the facts of this case.
2. In the result this appeal is allowed, the answer given by the High Court is discharged and in its place we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The department to pay the cost in this appeal to the assessee.
Alert