Case Law Details
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Commissioner of Income-tax
Versus
R.M. Singh
T.A. NO. 40 OF 2000
OCTOBER 31, 2012
ORDER
1. No body appeared on behalf of the respondent on several occasions. Therefore, heard only learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The questions raised are as under:
1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the nett profit at 12.5% of receipt of Arbitration Award when it held that income had to be computed in accordance with Section 176(3A) of the Income Tax Act ?”
2. “Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in giving relief of Rs.10,92,050/- to the assessee?”
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the A.O. held that Rs. 1348095/- was received during the year after discontinuance of business and, therefore, this amount is required to be added to the total income of the assessee in view of Section 176(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the basis of this addition, after giving deduction, which is lawfully permissible, the A.O. levied the tax on the assessed income in the assessment order dated 31.03.1997. The C.I.T.(A), Ranchi specifically accepted the contention of the Revenue that the total income received after discontinuance of business is required to be added in the total income under Section 176(3A) of the Act of 1961. The order dated 31.10.1997 of C.I.T.(A), Ranchi, was challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna by Revenue and the Tribunal in para-4 of its order specifically accepted the contention of the Revenue that the amount received by the assessee was received after discontinuance of business and, therefore, the said receipt is required to be added to the total income of the assessee under Section 176(3A) of the Act of 1961. It is submitted that while dealing with ‘Ground No.3’ in subsequent para-5, the Tribunal applied the net profit rate at the rate of 12.5% which should not have been done by the Tribunal as the said net profit rate at the rate of 12.5% is contrary to the provisions of Section 176(3A) of the Act of 1961. It is submitted that whatever income is received after discontinuance of business by the assessee is required to be added in the total income and after adding that income in the total income, the assessment can be made according to slab applicable to the income.
4. It is submitted that in view of the finding on ‘Ground No. 3’, the income of the receipt of the money by the assessee after discontinuance of business was considered as reasonable, which is contrary to Section 176(3A) of the Act.
5. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given in the impugned order dated 8.8.2000 of I.T.A.T. We are of the considered opinion that this finding of facts has already been upheld by the Tribunal that assessee has received a sum of Rs. 1348095/- after discontinuance of business and in view of Section 176(3A) of the Act, this income is required to be added to the total income of assessee. The rate of 12.5% on this income is not the only taxable income but whole of receipt is the income to be taken into consideration and by indirect interpretation the receipt which is required to be taken into total income of the assessee under Section 176(3A), cannot be reduced to 12.5% as net taxable profit of the assessee which is contrary to the provision of Section 176(3A). Therefore, the question is answered that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was not justified in restricting the net profit at 12.5% of receipt of money under Arbitration Award which was received after discontinuation of the business by the assessee and that income had to be computed in accordance with Section 176(3A) of the Income Tax Act.
The question no. 2 is also answered in terms of answer of question no. 1.
6. This appeal is allowed, accordingly.
