S M MUZUMDAR Vs. NINTH INCOME TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-1982-7-22
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 27,1982

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.B. Menon, Judicial Member - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1977-78, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1977.
(2.) The only ground raised in the appeal is that the AAC erred in bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 15,000 as income from profession. The assessee was carrying on the profession of consulting engineer for over 40 years. Due to advancing age and also indifferent health, the assessee, on 1-4-1976, assigned his profession along with goodwill for Rs. 85,000 to one Shri A.D. Savardekar, who had been working with the assessee for some time. Out of the consideration of Rs. 85,000, Rs. 1,000 was in respect of furniture, fixtures and other articles. The balance amount of Rs. 84,000 was described as the price for the goodwill and name of the said business or profession, outstandings and other intangible rights in connection with the said business'. During the course of the assessment, the ITO bifurcated the sum of Rs. 84,000. He estimated the outstanding fees at Rs. 25,000 and held that the balance of Rs. 64,000 represented the price of the goodwill. As pointed out by the AAC, there is an arithmetical mistake in this computation because there would be a balance of Rs. 64,000 under goodwill only if the amount under outstanding fees had been estimated at Rs. 20,000. Rejecting the contention of the assessee that Rs. 64,000, being the price of goodwill, cannot be brought to tax, the ITO brought the amount to tax as representing capital gains. He did not bring to tax the balance amount of Rs. 20,000 under any head and the order was silent with regard to this matter.
(3.) IN appeal, the AAC, relying upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294, held that the goodwill cannot be taxed as it is a self-generated asset. But he thought that the amount received by the assessee under the sale deed to cover the outstanding fees should be brought to tax as income from profession. After issuing a notice of enhancement to the assessee, he brought to tax a sum of Rs. 15,000 as income from profession. The assessee has come up in appeal against the order. It was contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that in the light of the rulings of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 and in the case of CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 and that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram [1981] 127 ITR 491, the AAC could not have brought to tax for the first time by way of enhancement, any amount under a head, under which no amount had been taxed at all by the ITO. The learned departmental representative, while not disputing the proposition, contended that a reading of the order of the ITO would show that he had actually intended to tax the amount.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.