JUDGMENT :- P.P.S. Janarathana Raja, J. The Revenue has come up on appeal as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 10.11.2004 in I.T.A.No.444/MDS/1998 raising the following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) even though the amount received of Rs.50,00,000/- on surrender of tenancy right is casual and non-recurring receipt under Section 10(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid?" 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee is a domestic Company, in which the public are substantially interested. It involved in the manufacture of Textiles, Engineering Products and services. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95 and the corresponding account year ended on 31.03.1994. The assessee/respondent company filed its return of income on 31.11.1994 computing the assessable loss of Rs.19,30,14,502/-. Later, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 26.02.1996 computing assessable loss of Rs.39,56,24,432/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer sent notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the "Act") on 31.03.1995. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the loss at Rs.30,76,94,998/- and declared "Nil Demand". While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, which is a consideration received from the land owner for surrendering tenancy rights. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the same is assessable under Section 10(3) of the Act and granted deduction of Rs.5,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.49,95,000/- is assessable under the head 'other sources'. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) held that the amount received is a capital receipt and the same was not liable to tax as treated by the Assessing Officer as casual and non-recurring income under Section 10(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue went on appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the same is not assessable under Section 10(3) of the Act and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue went on appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the same is not assessable under Section 10(3) of the Act and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue filed the present appeal raising the above question of law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the amount received on surrender of tenancy rights is a casual and non-recurring receipt under Section 10(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 4. Inspite of notice served on the assessee/respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee and the name of the assessee/respondent also appears in the cause list. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the documents available on record. The assessee was a tenant of a shop at Connaught place, New Delhi. There was an agreement entered into between the assessee/tenant and the landlord Shri.K.Dutta in the year 1953 and the same was renewed from time to time. The said premises was sold by the landlord to M/s.Bird Travels, who acknowledged the assessee as a tenant and given him tenancy rights and collected the rents. By an agreement dated 21.12.1993, the assessee agreed to vacate the premises and was paid compensation of Rs.50 lakhs towards termination of tenancy right. 6. There is no dispute by the Revenue that the amount received towards termination of tenancy rights is not subjected to capital gains at the relevant point of time. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the same is taxable under the head "other sources". Further, the Assessing Officer also granted deduction of Rs.5,000/- as per Section 10(3) of the Act and made addition of Rs.49,95,000/- . Whether the amount received towards surrendering of tenancy rights could be brought under the head 'other sources' was dealt with by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases. 1) Commissioner of Income Vs. D.P.Sandu Bros. Chembut (P) Ltd reported in (2005) 273 ITR 0001. 2) Beardsell Ltd Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2008) 297 ITR 87 (Mad). 7. 1) Commissioner of Income Vs. D.P.Sandu Bros. Chembut (P) Ltd reported in (2005) 273 ITR 0001. 2) Beardsell Ltd Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2008) 297 ITR 87 (Mad). 7. In the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Vs. D.P.Sandu Bros. Chembut (P) Ltd, cited supra, the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.14 to 17, held as follows:- "Section 14 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it stood at the relevant time similarly provided that "all income shall for the purposes of charge of income-tax and computation of total income be classified under six heads of income, namely:- (A) Salaries (B) Interest on Securities (C) Income from house property (D) Profits and gains of business or profession (E) Capital gains (F) Income from other sources unless otherwise, provided in the Act. Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of every kind which has not to be excluded from the total income under the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E. Therefore, if the income is included under any one of the heads, it cannot be brought to tax under the residuary provisions of Section 56. There is no dispute that a tenancy right is a capital asset the surrender of which would attract section 45 so that the value received would be a capital receipt and assessable if at all only under item E of section 14. That being so, it cannot be treated as a casual or non-recurring receipt under Section 10(3) and be subjected to tax under Section 56. The argument of the appellant that even if the income cannot be chargeable under Section 45, because of the inapplicability of the computation provided under Section 48, it could still impose tax under the residuary head is thus unacceptable. If the income cannot be taxed under Section 45, it cannot be taxed at all. (See. S.G.Mercantile Corporation P.Ltd Vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC)). Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of Section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under Section 10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody Vs. Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of Section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by the statute could be taxed as a casual or non-recurring receipt under Section 10(3) read with section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody Vs. S.A.L.Narayan Row, CIT (1966) 61 ITR 428(SC)432, 435. 8. Further, this Court also in the case of Beardsell Ltd., Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, cited supra has considered a similar issue and held in paragraph 10 as follows:- "The Commissioner of Income-tax has set aside the order of the assessment under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co.P.Ltd Vs. Asst CIT (1996) 217 ITR (AT) 51. The said Special Bench held that the amount received on surrender of the tenancy right is assessable as casual income under Section 10(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee in that case, filed an appeal to the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court considered the scope of section 10(3) and also section 45 of the Act and held that any amount received on transfer of a capital asset is liable to be taxed in accordance with the specific provisions of Section 45 to Section 55 of the Act and if any amount of capital gain is not taxable as capital gain for any reason, then, that amount cannot be treated as a casual and non-recurring receipt under Section 10(3) of the Act because Section 10(3) does not apply to capital receipts. The said Bombay High Court judgment is reported in Cadell Weaving Mill Co.P.Ltd., Vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 265. Aggrieved by the order of the Bombay High Court, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. The said judgment is reported in CIT Vs. D.P.Sandu Bros, Chembur P.Ltd., (2005) 273 ITR 1, wherein it was held that the tenancy right is a capital asset and also the surrender of the tenancy right amounts to transfer and hence the consideration received is a capital receipt within the meaning of Section 45. The said judgment is reported in CIT Vs. D.P.Sandu Bros, Chembur P.Ltd., (2005) 273 ITR 1, wherein it was held that the tenancy right is a capital asset and also the surrender of the tenancy right amounts to transfer and hence the consideration received is a capital receipt within the meaning of Section 45. Further, it was also held that the amendment to Section 55(2) takes effect from April 1, 1995, and applies only in relation to the assessment year 1995-96 and subsequent assessment years. Further, the Supreme Court by following its earlier decision in the case of CIT Vs. B.C.Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, held that till the amendment in the year 1995, the law was that if the cost of acquisition of a capital asset could not in fact be determined, the transfer of such capital asset would not attract capital gains. " 9. By following the above Apex Court as well this Court judgment, we are of the view that the amount received towards surrender of tenancy rights cannot be taxed as casual and non-recurring under Section 14 10(3) of the Act. Both the authorities have given a concurrent finding that the amount received towards tenancy rights is not taxable under Section 10(3) of the Act based on the valid material evidence and also the orders of the authorities are in conformity with the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court and this court. Therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal that warrants interference. Hence, we answer the above question of law in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue. The Tax Case (Appeal) is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.