“4. A reading of the above sections., viz., Sections 2(24), 2(45) and 5 along with the provisions of Section 4, the charging section, makes it patently clear that an amount to be subjected to charge of income-tax must fit in within these definitions, but the facts of the case, with which we are seized of do not warrant the interference that the amount can be labeled as ‘income’, much less, ‘total income’, hence, it is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. Admittedly, the position in law is that all receipts by an assessee cannot necessarily be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the purposes of income-tax and the question which any particular receipt is income or not depends on the nature of the receipt and the true scope and effect of the relevant taxing provision. The income tax authorities cannot assess all receipts, since they can assess only those receipts which amount to ‘income’. The legal position, as such, boils down to the fact that before a receipt can be assessed as ‘income’, the authorities must find it to be an ‘income’ as they cannot find it so until and unless there be material to justify their stand. In the case of the assessee, the amount received by him is for not services to the State of Uttar Pradesh, much less, to the Government of India. Accordingly, the amount is a ‘dole’ i.e., a receipt without any consideration and since it is a ‘dole’, it cannot be said to have any source. The payment depends entirely on the whims of the State of Uttar Pradesh, hence, the receipt cannot be termed to be an ‘income’ and, accordingly, cannot be brought into the mischief of the provisions of the Act, for being charged to Tax. If any authority is required for the proposition, then Mehboob Productions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 758 (Bom.,) Lal Chand Gopal Das v. CIT [1963]48 ITR 324 (All.) at p.336 and Siddhartha Publications (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1981]129 ITR 603 (Delhi) are in point.
