P.G. And W Sawoo Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (SC) [2016] 385 ITR 60 (SC)
The premises belonging to the appellant were let out on rent to the Government of India. The rent was enhanced from Rs.4.00 to Rs. 8.11 per sq. ft. per month effective from September 1, 1987. The said enhancement of rent was made by a letter dated March 29, 1994 of the Estate Manager of the Government of India. The enhancement was subject to conditions including execution of a fresh lease agreement and communication of acceptance of the conditions incorporated therein. Such acceptance was communicated by the appellant by letter dated March 30, 1994.
A notice was issued u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) seeking to reopen the concluded assessment of the appellant-assessee for the assessment year 1989- 90 (for the period of 21 month commencing on July 1, 1987 and ending on March 31, 1989).
The contention of the assessee before the Supreme Court was that having regard to the provisions of sections 5, 22 and 23 of the Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), no income accrued or arose and no annual value which is taxable under sections 22 and 23 of the Act was received or receivable by the assessee at any point of time during the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 1989-90. Hence, the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment in question was without jurisdiction or authority of law.
The Respondent –Revenue contended that the enhancement of rent was retrospective, i.e. from September 1, 1987 and, therefore, the income must have to be understood to have been received in the said assessment year, i.e. 1989-90.
The Supreme Court held that no such right to receive the rent accrued to the assessee at any point of time during the assessment year in question, inasmuch as such enhancement though with retrospective effect, was made only in the year 1994. The contention of Revenue that the enhancement was with retrospective effect did not alter the situation as retrospectivity was with regard to the right to receive rent with effect from an anterior date. The right, however, came to be vested only in the year 1994.
The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1989-90 was without jurisdiction and authority of law. The said notice, therefore, was liable to be interfered with and the order of the High Court set aside. The Supreme Court ordered accordingly and consequently, the appeal was allowed.
