TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (10) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....produced and for the remaining two years the grounds are identical :-- " (1) That the learned lower authorities have not appreciated the matter concerning the rent of Vijaya Bank premises by not going through fully with the evidence available on record. (2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the letter dated 15th January, 1983 as not admissible on the assumption that the Hon'ble Tribunal, by order dated March 3rd, 1984, had not allowed this letter as evidence, whereas the Hon'ble Tribunal, in fact, had accepted this letter as admissible and only on letter dated 2nd May, 1973 the Hon'ble Tribunal had declined, but had left the matter of accepting letter dated May 2nd, 1973 to the discretion of the Commissioner Appeals. (3) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has only picked up a few words in favour of the department and ignored the evidence on record in favour of the appellant, which clearly showed that the rent was Rs. 1,250. (4) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone properly through all the documents allowed as evidence by the Hon'ble Tribunal and thereby has not been able to judge fully the pleas made by the appellant, on rental goodw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of the CIT(A) as well as in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, a brief narration is considered necessary for a proper appreciation of the facts found by us. The premises in question were earlier in occupation of M/s. Allied Electric & Radio Corporation on a monthly rent of Rs. 263.50. An arrangement was arrived at between the existing tenant Vijaya Bank and the appellant whereby it was agreed that the tenant would vacate the portion occupied by it in favour of Vijaya Bank for a consideration of Rs. 75,000. Vijaya Bank, however, expressed its inability to pay Rs. 75,000 as it was not possible under their Rules and Regulations to pay "pugree". The appellant agreed that the payment be made by the bank to M/s. Allied Electric & Radio Corporation on getting vacant possession and the payment of Rs. 75,000 be shown as a loan to the appellant. The appellant also agreed that till the sum of Rs. 75,000 was cleared the rent be paid at the rate of Rs. 1,250 per month and after the amount is cleared up, the rent of Rs. 2,500 per month will be paid by the Vijaya Bank to the assessee. This commitment of the assessee is contained in a letter dated 10-4-1973 addressed to one Mr. Sadanand She....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being adjusted at the rate of Rs. 1,250 per month. But the entire thrust of the facts on record establishes the real fact that the monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 2,500 and not Rs. 1,250. This is borne out from all the papers filed on record. As has rightly been pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) in the remand report referred to above, the payment of Rs. 75,000 was of the nature of capital payment M/s. Vijaya Bank agreed to pay Rs. 75,000 to the outgoing tenant and compensate the landlord by an increase of rent from Rs. 263.50 to Rs. 2,500 per month. The payment of lumpsum amount to a sitting tenant is not a legal or statutory liability. By whatever nomenclature it might be said the real situation cannot be altered and the real situation is that the assessee paid Rs. 75,000 (through Vijaya Bank) and, in return of this payment, the assessee got the benefit of enhancement of monthly rent to Rs. 2,500 per month. This situation emerges after a persual of all the papers filed on record. Generally speaking, it may be argued by the assessee that the outgoing should be allowed because the earning capacity of the assessee increased. Unfortunately, this is not the position in law. The outgo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is not a charge created by operation of law or under a decree passed by the court or by some other means, not attributable to the volition of the appellant. This is clear from the letter dated 10-4-1973 addressed by the appellant to one Mr. Sadanand Shetty of Vijaya Bank, New Delhi, the relevant extract from which is reproduced as under : " With regard to the goodwill required by them I do not see any reason why the amount of Rs. 75,000 as goodwill etc. be paid by me. Since you have already settled the amount of goodwill, furniture, fixtures etc. with them, the same is payable to you. It is not possible for me to pay goodwill or any pugree. It was on that account that I readily agreed to give you my recommendation on your application to the Rent Controller. However, I appreciate that as a Banking Institute it is not possible for you to pay any pugree or goodwill. I, therefore, agree to your suggestion of your completing the transaction of payment of these amounts directly with M/s. Allied Electric and getting the possession of the premises from them after due allotment proceedings and later show the paymen to Rs. 75,000 as loan to me. Till such time as the amount paid as....