Debashish Chatterjee, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 48(3), Kolkata
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 850/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12
Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddyi.T.A. No. 850 & 1280/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively) Debashish Chatterejee…….......................…….………………….………………………………..………Appellant [Pan : Ackpc 0262 A] Ito, Ward-48(3), Kolkata………..….……………………………………………….…………………...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Gautam Patra, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 8, 2017 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dated 30.11.2016 & 30.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively: 2. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.850/Kol/2017 A.Y 2011-12 Read As Follows: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Having Admitted That Loans Received From Wife, Mother & Brother In Earlier Year & Conversion Of Such Loan Into Capital A/C In The Present Year Although Does Not Attract To Provisions Of Section 41(1) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Tantamounts To Profit & Gain From Business Within The Meaning Of Section 28(Iv) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Consider The Action Of The Appellant To Convert The Loan Into Capital A/C Amounting To Rs.25,70,000/- As Income U/S 28(Iv) Of I.T. Act Instead Of U/S 41(1) Of I.T Act, 1961. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong & Unjustified In Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal.
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)
…01.2009 held as follows: “17. As can be seen from the above, one of the condition necessary for applicability of section 28(iv) is the benefit or perquisite sought to be taxed must be arising in the course of business carried on. In the case Chetnaben B. Seth 203 ITR 24(Guj), Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that amount received by an assessee partner of a firm towards valuation of goodwill and assets of a firm at the time of retirement from the firm does not attract provisions of section 28 (iv) of the Act, since, the same cannot be said to be a perquisite arising from the business and that even otherwise it…
