Rastogi, J. - (1.) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of the car in question was ' a benefit' within the meaning of Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was carrying on a profession within the meaning of Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act ?"
(2.) This reference relates to the assessment year 1965-66. The assessee derives income from sale of books. He has got some agricultural holding and he also gives discourses on vedanta and for that purpose undertakes tours. In the relevant previous year the assessee made an investment of Rs. 16,100 in the purchase of a car and it was registered in his name. His claim was that the price paid for the car had come from his followers by way of contributions and for that purpose an affidavit of Sri C.P. Singhal was filed before the ITO. It was claimed by Sri Singhal that he had collected certain amounts from different persons and had deposited the same in his account in the co-operative bank (Rs. 2,000 on June 11, 1963, and Rs. 8,100 on November 7, 1964, and Rs. 6,000 was received from Sri Nand Kishore, Vakil of Kanpur), and it was from those contributions that the Car was purchased for the assessee. His statement as well was recorded by the ITO. The ITO, however, held that since donations were made by the followers of the assessee, who had been benefited by his preachings, these receipts were for the exercise of the vocation carried on by the assessee and hence were taxable in his hands. On this view he included this amount of Rs 16,100 in the income of the assessee.
(3.) The assessee appealed but remained unsuccessful and took up the matter in further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's case and held that instead of paying travelling expenses, the disciples provided the car to him for the purpose of his travels and hence the amount contributed by them for that purpose did not amount to the assessee's income. It has also been held that the car is not the assessee's personal or his family's property. The addition was, accordingly, deleted and hence at the instance of the Commissioner the questions, mentioned above, have been referred to this court.;