Intention at acquisition determines capital or revenue character; proceeds from sale of plots and sites held capital.

Appellate remand powers permit reconsideration of the whole assessment and include enhancement where justified, so an appellate authority may include amounts not specifically appealed against when acting within its Section 31 powers on remand; however, new sources require factual basis in the original assessment. On classification, receipts from sale of parcelling of plots and fruit shop sites were held capital in nature because the land was acquired as an investment without intention to trade; consequently the sale proceeds are conversions of capital and not assessable as business income.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on remand, was entitled to include and assess Rs. 9,397 (sale proceeds of plots) which was not the subject-matter of the original appeal; (ii) Whether the sum of Rs. 13,197 (Rs. 9,397 from plots and Rs. 3,800 from fruit shop sites) is assessable as business income or is a capital receipt.

Issue (i): Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could enhance the assessment on remand to include amounts not specifically appealed against.

Analysis: The appellate power exercisable by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on disposal of an appeal is governed by Section 31, which authorises confirmation, reduction, enhancement or annulment of the assessment. That power is not limited by the narrower right of appeal under Section 30 which is conferred only on the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal's remand under Section 33(4) permits reconsideration by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and when disposing of the appeal after remand the Assistant Commissioner must act within the powers conferred by Section 31. Those powers permit dealing with the whole assessment and include enhancement where justified, subject to the limitation that new sources cannot be introduced without basis in the original assessment.

Conclusion: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was entitled, on remand, to include and assess the sum of Rs. 9,397; the exercise of enhancement power on remand was within jurisdiction (against the assessee).

Issue (ii): Whether the sums of Rs. 9,397 and Rs. 3,800 are business receipts assessable to tax or capital receipts exempt from tax.

Analysis: The determination turns on whether the transactions constituted trade or an adventure in the nature of trade as defined by Section 2(4). The decisive factor is the intention at the time of acquisition: purchasing with the object of trading or speculating renders profits revenue in nature; selling an owned investment after a passage of time, with improvements to realize value, remains a conversion of capital. The facts show the land was acquired as part of investment in the factory and not with an intention to carry on a trade in sites; the sale of the fruit shop sites and the parcelling and sale of town plots were transactions of an owner converting investment into money rather than carrying on business or an adventure in the nature of trade.

Conclusion: Both the Rs. 9,397 (plots) and Rs. 3,800 (fruit shop sites) are capital receipts; the total Rs. 13,197 is not assessable as business income and is exempt from tax (decision in favour of the assessee on this issue).

Final Conclusion: The appellate authority had jurisdiction to enhance the assessment on remand, but on the merits the impugned receipts are capital and not taxable as business income; overall the assessee succeeds on the tax merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property acquired without an intention to trade is subsequently sold, including after parcelling and improvements, the proceeds are capital receipts; intention at acquisition is the determinative factor distinguishing an adventure in the nature of trade from mere realisation of capital.

---