Commissioner of Income Tax vs B.N. Sen

Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.—The following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal u/s 256(1) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'') :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income tax Officer was not justified in assessing the receipt of Rs. 21,866 to tax for the assessment year 1974-75 by invoking the deeming provisions contained in section 176(4) of the income tax Act, 1961?

The assessment year involved in this reference is the assessment year 1974-75, for which the corresponding assessment year is the accounting period ending on 31-3-1974.

The facts stated by the Tribunal in the statement of case are as under: The assessee in this case is Bar-at-Law and was practising as an advocate in the Calcutta High Court till 20-3-1972 when he became a Minister of the West Bengal Government. The assessee filed a return showing income from profession at Rs. 21,865. The professional receipts were shown at Rs. 26,365 and an expense of Rs. 4,500 was shown. He was, therefore, assessed at Rs. 21,865. Thereafter, he took up the matter in appeal and contended that this amount was not liable to be assessed as his professional income inasmuch as he had discontinued his profession and the income was received after such discontinuance. The AAC accepted the assessee''s claim and deleted the income after he had ceased to be an advocate. The revenue thereafter came in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the representatives of the parties relied upon an earlier decision in Justice Ramendra Mohan Datta [IT Appeal No. 2474 (Cal.) of 1975-76, dated 29-9-1976], decided on 29-9-1976 and dismissed the departmental appeal.

The case on which the Tribunal relied came up before this Court in CIT v. R.M. Datta [IT Reference Nos. 142 and 472 of 1975, dated 4-7-1989] and this Court answered the question in favour of the assessee.

Following the aforesaid judgment, the question of law is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

There will be no order as to costs.

Sen, J.

I agree.