NALNIKANT AMBALAL MODY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL No. 731/1964Supreme Court1966 INSC 11704 May 1966Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: A.K. SARKAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR, R.S. BACHAWAT A B16 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appellant, an advocate who maintained accounts on a cash basis, ceased practice in 1957 upon being elevated to the Bench. In the accounting years 1958 and 1959, during which he had not practiced, he received outstanding professional fees. He offered these receipts as income for assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer assessed these amounts. The appellant then sought revision from the Commissioner of Income-tax, arguing the receipts were not income. The Commissioner disagreed, leading to the present appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, held that the receipts were indeed the fruits of the assessee's professional activity and fell under the fourth head of Section 6 ('Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation'). However, they were not chargeable under this head because, as per Section 10 (the corresponding computing section), income received by an assessee on a cash basis in an accounting year where the profession was not carried on at all is not chargeable. The Court rejected the argument that these receipts could be taxed under Section 12 ('income from other sources'). It reasoned that Section 12 is a residuary head for income not covered by other heads. Since the receipts clearly fell under the fourth head, they could not be shifted to the residuary head simply because they escaped taxation under the computing section for the fourth head. The heads of income in Section 6 are mutually exclusive. The character of income does not change based on the timing of receipt or the accounting system. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Commissioner's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether outstanding professional fees received after cessation of practice, by an assessee maintaining accounts on a cash basis, are taxable under Section 6, head 'Profits and gains of business, profession or vocation' of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Whether such receipts can be taxed under Section 12, 'income from other sources', if they are not taxable under the fourth head. Assessee's contentions: The receipts were not income and were wrongly taxed. The assessee relied on the principle that income received in an accounting year where the profession was not carried on is not chargeable under Section 10. Revenue's contentions: The Commissioner held that the receipts were chargeable under the residuary head 'other sources' (Section 12), possibly based on observations in Re. B. M. Kamdar. The judgment notes that neither side relied on Section 250A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 6,Section 10,Section 12,Section 46,Section 250A,Section 176(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

·• A B 0 NALNIKANT AMBALAL KODY ~ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY May 4~ 1966 295 [A. K. SARKAR. C.J., J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] Indian Income-tax Act 1922, ss. 46, 10, 12-0utstanding fees from legal profession received after cessatwn of practtce-cash sy.s- tem of accounting-Recetpts whether can be taxed under s. J.2 income from 'other sources'.

The appellant an advocate who maintained his accounts on the cash system gave up practice when he was elevated to the Bench in 1957. Certain outstandmg professional dues were however received by him in the accounting years 1958 and 1959. These receipts were shown by him as income in his return for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1!160-61 and were assessed by the Income-tax Officer. The appellant then went in revision to the Commissioner of Income-tax contending that the said receipts were not income and had been wrong'.iy taxed. The Commissioner having decided against him the D appe!J.ant came to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. B G B HELD: (i) The rec~ipts in the present case were clearly the fruits of the assessee's professional actlvity and fell under the fourth head of s. 6

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 6

All 333 judgments and leading authorities on Section 6 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →