JUDGEMENT

S.S.CHADHA,J. - (1.)THESE three references under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), raise the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the premium on issue of shares amounting to Rs. 24,000 in 1967 -68, Rs. 83,000 in 1968 -69 and Rs. 12,000 in 1969 -70 assessment year was not a revenue receipt includible in the total income of the company -

(2.)THE facts are these. The three assessment years under reference are 1967 -68, 1968 -69 and 1969 -70 of which the relevant previous years are the years ending September 30, 1966, September 30, 1967, and September 30, 1968, respectively. The assessee had 136 unissued equity shares of the face value of Rs. 500 each. By a resolution No. 25/64 dated January 30, 1965, the board of directors of the assessee resolved that the unissued equity shares of the company of Rs. 500 each be thereafter issued at a premium of Rs. 1,000 per share. In pursuance of this resolution of the Board, out of 136 unissued equity shares, 34 shares were allotted during the accounting period relevant to the asst. year 1967 -68, 83 were allotted in the accounting period relevant to the asst. year 1968 -69 and 12 were allotted in the accounting period relevant to the asst. yr. 1969 -70. The shares were allotted on premium of Rs. 1,000 each. The assessee owned a building called Coronation Hotel Building in the heart of the city. The main business of the assessee was to organise trade in oil and oil seeds. This was, however, suspended by the Forward Markets Commission in June, 1964. The trading was resumed in October, 1964, but again banned from September 30, 1965. Thereafter, for a long time, the assessee could not do its business. The shares were allotted at a premium and the allottees were also given office accommodation in the buildng owned by the assessee.
(3.)WHEN the assessment for the three assessment years was completed, the ITO came to the conclusion that the assessee company had devised a novel method of charging revenue receipts from the new tenants under the guise of share premium. Eight different reasons were given by the ITO for coming to this conclusion. The ITO then came to the conclusion : " The assessee gave a wrong nomenclature of share premium but it was not share premium in fact. Neither is it an advance rent nor a deposit to be adjusted against future rent, but it is a revenue receipt assessable under the head Income from 'other sources' in the hands of the assessee company". The ITO, accordingly, included Rs. 24,000 in the first year, Rs. 83,000 in the second year and Rs. 12,000 in the third year as the assessee's income under the head "Income from other sources".
The assessee came up in appeal before the AAC. The AAC deleted the additions on the ground that the amounts in question could not be treated as revenue receipt. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the AAC, the ITO came in appeal before the Tribunal. In appeal before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the amounts clearly represented revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal for reasons recorded upheld the decision of the AAC and dismissed the Departmental appeal.

;


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