Sigma Convertors,Chennai vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 24 February, 2025
"8. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld.
Representatives of the parties and have also gone through the record.
We find force in the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- was deposited in the
Escrow Account. Both the transferor and transferee had common
rights over the said amount as the said amount was deposited in the
Escrow Account as a security in respect of future liabilities of the
company/transferor. There was no certainty about the quantum of
amount likely to be received by transferor or transferee out of the said
amount deposited in Escrow Account. Even there was no certainty of
the time of release of the said amount or the part of the amount to
either of the parties as a dispute between the parties had occurred and
litigation was going on. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that
the assessee had got a vested right to receive the amount in question. It
was only at the end of the litigation that the rights and liabilities of the
transferor and transferee were ascertained and thereupon the share of
the assessee was passed on to the assessee for which the assessee
offered capital gains in the immediate A. Y. 2010-11. The Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hemel Raju Shete' (supra)
while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'E.D.
Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) has observed that when the
taxpayer did not have the vested right to receive a particular amount,
it cannot be said that the said amount has accrued to the taxpayer.