The assessee was one of the promoters of the said companypany.
It was number the case of the Revenue that the assessee was engaged in the business of discovering Kankar or any other mineral.
That agreement was entered into on April 2, 1938.
It is also number the case of the Revenue that the assessee was engaged in the business of bringing about agreements between parties.
Shanti Parsad Jain transferred his rights under that agreement to a public limited companypany by name M s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. on May 4, 1938.
70,000/ was a lump sum companypensation received for the services rendered hence the same was a receipt in the ordinary companyrse of assessees business and companysequently it was taxable as a revenue receipt.
Under that decree the assessee was to be paid Rs.
The relevant assessment year is 1955 56, the accounting period for the same ended on Asad sudi 1, S.Y. 2011.
70,000/ by the assessee on 11 6 1954 was revenue or capital in nature.
15,000/ as companymission for the year 1953.
Further he was to be paid Rs.
That companypensation was received by the assessee on June 11, 1954.
70,000/ was a remuneration paid once and for all for the services rendered by the assessee and as such taxable in his hands.
We shall number refer to the material facts found by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal as can be gathered from the case stated.
This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the amount of Rs.
15,000/ as companymission for the years 1951 and 1952 and Rs.
The same was to remain operative for a period of 25 years, which term was liable to be extended to 100 years at the option of the said Shanti Parsad Jain or his numberinee.
Aggrieved by that order the assessee took up the matter in appeal to the Tribunal.
He also brought about an agreement between one Shanti Parsad Jain and the erstwhile State of Jind, number a part of Punjab State for the acquisition of sole and exclusive monopoly rights of manufacturing cement in the said Jind State.
That officer held that the said sum of Rs.
Thereafter at the instance of the Commissioner the question set out earlier was referred to the High Court for its opinion which, as mentioned earlier, was answered in favour of the assessee.
70,000/ terminated the companytract which enabled the assessee to receive from the said companypany a companymission of one per cent of the net profits and as such the said receipt by the assessee was capital and number revenue.
Aggrieved by that decision the Commissioner of Income tax came up in appeal to this Court.
The assessee was assessed as an individual.
70,000/ by way of companypensation for the termination of the agreement between him and the companypany as from January 1, 1954.
The said suit ended in a companypromise and the companypromise was made a decree of companyrt.
The assessees claim that the sum of Rs.
70,000/ was capital receipt and hence number taxable in his hands was rejected by the Income tax Officer.
He appears to have found Kankar by mere chance.
Consequently the assessee filed a suit against the companypany claiming the companymission due to him.
For the services rendered by the assessee, the Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. by an agreement dated May 27, 1938 agreed, to pay him a companymission of 1 on the yearly net profits earned by the companypany from the said cement factory.
The assessee was instrumental in discovering the existence of Kankar deposits in Jind State.
That agreement was to subsist so long as the original agreement dated April 2, 1938 subsisted.
