1998 (1) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot liable to tax on capital gains of Rs. 50,000 received as compensation for vacating the leasehold premises ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tenancy right of the assessee in 13, Narindra Place, New Delhi, was a capital asset ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was relinquishment of the capital asset under s. 2(47) on the assessee vacating the said premises ?" 2. The assessee had received Rs. 50,000 on 7th Jan., 1973, from Northern Enterprises (P.) Ltd., as compensation for surrendering possession of house No. 13, Narindra Place, New Delhi. The house was rented by the father of the assessee and on his death, the tenancy rights had devolved on the assessee. The c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acquisition thereof, the compensation received by the assessee was also not taxable. In forming this opinion, the Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court decision in Jagdev Singh Mumick vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 500 (Del) : TC 21R.266, and the Madras High Court decision in CIT vs. K. Rathnam Nadar (1969) 71 ITR 433 (Mad) : TC 20R.426. Subsequent to the passing of the order of the Tribunal, we have available before us yet another Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Shiv Charan Singh vs. CIT (1985) 47 CTR (Del) 12 : (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Del) : TC 20R.233, wherein on an analysis of the relevant provisions of the IT Act, the view of the law taken by the Delhi High Court is that the cost of the assessee in the acquisition of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1) of the Act, we cannot direct the amount to be taxed as such in view of the nature of our jurisdiction-advisory in nature. We have to confine ourselves to the questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal and referred as such to the High Court. The contention that in the event of the receipt being held not liable to capital gains tax, the same would be liable to be taxed as casual income was not raised on behalf of the Revenue at any stage during the assessment proceedings and the hearing of the appeals preferred against the order of assessment. We cannot entertain the contention for the first time while hearing the present reference as the same is not found reflected in the order of the Tribunal and hence cannot be treated as one a....