JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - This reference u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act" ) has been made on a motion by Messrs. H. S. K. Rawlley (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (in short, "the Tribunal"). 2. The background facts as appear from the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal are as follows : For the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income from contract works. It had entered into a contract for loading, transport and reloading of limestones in railway wagons with the Rourkela Steel Plant. It issued notices on August 5, 1976, intimating its desire to retrench the noticee workers with effect from November 15, 1976,. This arrangement was accepted by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by letter of the Under Secretary, dated November 10, 1976. The background for such notices appears to be the apprehended liability to pay gratuity to the workers if they continued in employment beyond November 15, 1976. Because a drought situation existed in the district of Sundargarh in the State of Orissa, correspondence was made by the management of the Rourkela Steel Plant with the assessee calling upon it not to give effect to the retrenchment orders and to continue engagement of the labourers, by allowing extension of the contract. The agreed rates as indicated in the contract did not include the liability for retrenchment benefits and gratuity. The assessee, therefore, moved the management of the Rourkela Steel Plant to bear the burden of retrenchment benefits and gratuity in the event of retrenchment of the workers. The management of the Rourkela Steel Plant agreed to pay the actual rate of retrenchment benefits and gratuity to the workers employed by the assessee. In the work order dated September 19, 1979, the Rourkela Steel Plant provided some extra rate for gratuity and retrenchment benefits which worked out to Rs. 94,473 for the assessment year in question. The assessee did not accept the proposal, being of the view that the ultimate liability would be more. The amount was, however, received under protest and the assessee continued its correspondence with the Rourkela Steel Plant. It requested the Rourkela Steel Plant to take back the amount and pay retrenchment benefits and gratuity directly to the workers. The assessee did not accept the proposal, being of the view that the ultimate liability would be more. The amount was, however, received under protest and the assessee continued its correspondence with the Rourkela Steel Plant. It requested the Rourkela Steel Plant to take back the amount and pay retrenchment benefits and gratuity directly to the workers. The amount was reflected in the assessee's books of account as a loan from the Rourkela Steel Plant, In view of the protest of the assessee, subsequently, the Rourkela Steel Plant took over the liability and recovered the amount from the assessee. The Income Tax Officer did not accept the stand of the assessee that the amount in question was not its income and that it was acting as a mere custodian of the amount of Rourkela Steel Plant. He, therefore, treated it as the assessee's income. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the stand of the assessee and deleted the addition. The Revenue moved the Tribunal in second appeal. The Tribunal, being of the opinion that the payment having been received by the assessee, the manner in which the same was recorded in the accounts was not conclusive and, accordingly, allowed the appeal. 3. On hearing Mr. G. Rath for the assessee and Mr. R. P. Kar for the Department, we are of the view that the approach of the Tribunal was not correct. The Tribunal did not refer to the various factual aspects highlighted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and came to an abrupt conclusion that the assessee, having received the money, was liable to be taxed because the receipt would be a part of its trading receipts. It, however, noticed that, ultimately, the assessee may have to pay retrenchment gratuity to the retrenched labourers and the balance was to be refunded to Rourkela Steel Plant. According to it, the necessary deductions would be granted in the year in which the actual payments were made. It is a case where the assessee had merely received the money under protest and treated it as a loan from Rourkela Steel Plant. The amount was reflected as a part of the amounts due to sundry creditors. It was merely acting as the custodian of the money. It is a case where the assessee had merely received the money under protest and treated it as a loan from Rourkela Steel Plant. The amount was reflected as a part of the amounts due to sundry creditors. It was merely acting as the custodian of the money. This is further evident from the fact that the unpaid amount, if any, was to be refunded to Rourkela Steel Plant. In fact, subsequently, Rourkela Steel Plant accepted the liability and recovered the amount from the assessee. The liability could not have been of two persons. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has attached importance to the receipt of money by the assessee. In all cases where a person receives money, he shall not be held liable to pay tax on such receipt, unless it constitutes a taxable receipt resulting in income. A receipt must be one having the character of income. As explained by the Supreme Court in Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal all receipts are not income, the concept of receipt being much wider than the concept of income. There must be a right to receive the income or the income must have accrued to it. A mere claim to entitlement without adjudication of its payability cannot be treated to be a right to receive the amount (see Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-II, Calcutta Vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., ). These circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee had no right to receive the amount. On the other hand, it was disputing the quantum and was insisting that, if there was any liability, the same was of the Rourkela Steel Plant. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the amount in question constituted the income of the assessee. Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. Before parting with the case, we shall deal with a submission of Mr. Kar for the Revenue. He has submitted that, pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal for subsequent periods, allowance may have been granted when payments were made to the workers. 4. Before parting with the case, we shall deal with a submission of Mr. Kar for the Revenue. He has submitted that, pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal for subsequent periods, allowance may have been granted when payments were made to the workers. We make it clear that, in view of our answer to the question referred to us, if any allowance has been granted for the subsequent periods, the same shall be withdrawn and the assessments shall be modified accordingly. 5. The reference is, accordingly, answered. No costs. S. K. Mohanty, J. 6. I agree.