The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. Shri Anil Kumar Nehru

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2072 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-16 … Appellant v/s Shri Anil Kumar Nehru … Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.Sanjiv M. shah for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2014 P. C. : 1Having heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at great length and perusing with his assistance the order under challenge, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not deserve admission. Despite the persuasive ability at his command, Mr.Suresh Kumar could not convince us that this appeal raises a substantial question of law. Here is a case of a salaried employee and when he was so employed by the employer Pfizer India Ltd., he received rights under the Stock Option Grant from the parent Company of his employer. They were granted in 1991 and in subsequent years. The assessee sold those rights during the year under consideration, namely, the assessment year 2002-2003. The appellant only held the rights under this Stock Option Grant and could not have held any shares due to the exchange control restrictions prevalent at the time of acquiring and holding foreign securities by any resident Indian. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that he never held any shares. It is in these circumstances that during the year under consideration, the long term capital gain was worked out. The Assessing Officer assessed this amount as perquisite under the head “salary” on substantive basis. That is the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in the case of prior assessment years. The objections were filed and thereafter what the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has done is that, he followed the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001 to 2002 in the case of the very assessee and the order dated 28[th] March, 2008 in that behalf. However, the Tribunal has partly allowed Ground No.3 of the assessee and held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sumit Bhattacharya v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Appeal No.238/Mum/2005, dated 3[rd] January, 2008. Similar view was taken in the case of very assessee by the Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Application No.352/Mum/2008 vide order dated 23[rd] December, 2008. It is, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the present appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)