M RAMALAKSHMI REDDY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following four questions of law with reference to the assessment year 1975-76 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) WHETHER the Tribunal was right in holding that after the amendment of section 10(3) all receipts of a casual and non-recurring nature are exempt only to the extent of Rs. 1, 000 in the light of the judgment of the High Court, in the case of CIT v. G. R. Karthikeyan 1980 (124) ITR 85, 1980 (17) CTR 301, 1980 (4) TAXMAN 49, 1980 (117) CTR(Mad) 301 (Mad) exempting the total receipts ?.

(3.) THE heated debate at the Bar on this and allied aspects need not detain us further also because of our concurrence with the second contention of the Solicitor-General that the large open spaces cannot be regarded as appurtenant to the terraces, stands and structures. What is integral is not necessarily appurtenant. A position of subordination, something incidental or ancillary or dependent is implied in appurtenance. Can we say that the large spaces are subsidiary or ancillary to or inevitably implied in the enjoyment of the buildings qua buildings ? That much of space required for the use of the structures as such has been excluded by the High Court itself. Beyond that may or may not be necessary for the hat or mela but not for the enjoyment of the chabutras as such. A hundred acres may spread out in front of a club house for various games like golf. But all these abundant acres are unnecessary for nor incidental to the enjoyment of the house in any reasonable manner... THErefore, what is necessary for the enjoyment of the building is alone covered by the expression 'appurtenance'. If some other purpose was being fulfilled by the building and the lands, it is not possible to contend that those lands are covered by the expression 'appurtenances'... In short, the touchstone of 'appurtenance' is dependence of the building on what appertains to it for its use as a building. Obviously, the hat, bazar or mela is not an appurtenance to the building.