TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was received in cash by the assessee was or was not in consideration of surrender of tenancy rights?" The assessment year is 1990-91 and the relevant accounting period is the financial year ended on March 31, 1990. In the assessment order, framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the Assessing Officer has recorded as under: "The assessee was carrying his business in the shop situated near Dhiraj Sons, Athwalines, Surat. This shop was owned by Shri Navinbhai Ratilal Modi and others which was taken on monthly rent of Rs.80 by the assessee. During this year under consideration, the assessee relinquished his tenancy right in respect of this shop and received an amount of Rs. 5,00,101 (Rs. 1,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ature in view of the provisions of section 10(3) read with section 28(iv) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Vide order dated January 10, 1995, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) bifurcated the total amount of Rs. 5,00,101 into two parts: the first one being an amount of Rs. 1,00,101 being receipt by cheque, and the second one being Rs. 4,00,000 being receipt in cash. For the reasons stated in his order he came to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 1,00,101 which was received by cheque was not liable to tax as it was compensation received by a tenant for relinquishment of tenancy rights, and the same had wrongly been brought to tax under section 10(3) read with secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing opportunity of hearing to the legal heirs of the assessee. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes accordingly." As can be seen from the aforesaid observations or findings, howsoever one may describe them, the Tribunal has contradicted itself in two sentences which follow one after another. If the earlier portion wherein it is observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that Rs. 4,00,000 is not for relinquishment of tenancy rights in addition to Rs. 1,00,101 is correct, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to go on and observe in the second sentence that the said fact, viz., Rs. 4,00,000 being part of Rs.5,00,101 received at the time of surrender of tenancy could be ascertained by opportunity of cross-examination of ....