COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, LAHORE VS TAUHEED ELAHI
2001 P T D 1329
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE. LAHORE
versus
TAUHEED ELAHI
C. T. R. No. 350 of 1991, heard on 11/12/2000.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----
----S.136---Hyderogenated Vegetable Oil Industry Act (Control and Development) Act (LXV of 1973), S.26---Reference to High Court ---Scope- Assessee., an individual had shares in a limited company running the business of oil which was taken over by the Government---Receipt of minimum guaranteed return by assessee as a substitute for the compensation bonds for taking over the Oil Mill by the Government---Nature of receipt ---Taxability- Assessing Officer issued a notice under S.34, Income-tax Act, 1922 on the ground that assessee had failed to indicate various amounts in each year received under S.26, Vegetable Oil Industries Act, 1963---Contention of the assessee that the amount represented minimum guaranteed return in the form of compensation and, therefore, did not represent income but casual gain,, was rejected---Appellate Tribunal had found that "admittedly minimum guaranteed return was received by the assessee as a substitute for the compensation bonds and was of capital nature"---Tribunal had found. as a fact that revenue had admitted that amounts received by the assessee represented a substitute for the compensation bonds---Revenue claimed that the amounts received amounted to income on compensation bonds which were given to the assessee--Revenue having not been able to controvert the facts as found by the Tribunal, question as framed that "the amount received by the assessee was of a capital nature -and as such. not taxable" did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal---Answer was declined by the High Court.
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax Central Zone, Lahore to solicit our opinion and answer to the following questions:---
"Whether on the facts .and -in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount received by the assessee was of a capital nature and as such not taxable?"
2. The facts in brief are that .the assessee an individual for the assessment years 1974-1975 to 1977-1978 filed his return which was finalized under section 34(3) of the late Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee had shares in a limited company known as United Industries, Faisalabad. The Oil Mill/Factory run by the Company was taken over by the Government on 2-9-1973. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 34 of the repealed Act op the ground that he had failed to indicate various amounts in each year received under section 26 of the Hyderogenated Vegetable Oil Industry Act (Control and Development) Act, 1973. The contention of the assessee that the amount represented minimum guaranteed return in the form of compensation and, therefore, did not represent Income but casual gain was rejected. The learned .first appellate authority, however, disapproved the inclusion of these amounts in the income of the assessee in the years involved. The revenue on further appeal before the Tribunal failed inasmuch as learned Single Member of the Tribunal found that "admittedly minimum guaranteed return was received by the assessee as a substitute for the compensation bonds and was of capital nature".
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the revenue, we are of the view that the question as framed does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. It will be noted that the Tribunal found it as a fact that the revenue had admitted that amounts received by the assessee represented a substitute for the compensation bonds. That findings of fact if accepted as correct then the opinion of the learned Tribunal that receipt was of capital nature is not open to exception. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue in terms of the question claims that the. amounts received amounted to income "on" compensation bonds which were given to the assessee on 3-12-1977. The difference, as a fact clearly being that the revenue found an amount received to be a minimum return on the compensation bonds while the assessee claimed that these amounts were doled out to him as "part of the compensation" determined by the Government on his share in the Industry which was taken over by it.
4. As far as taxability of the amount is concerned since the revenue has not been able to controvert the facts as found by the learned Member in Chamber, we find that the question as framed does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal.
5. Answer declined.
M.B.A./C-55/LAnswer declined.