1982 (10) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding inclusion of income from specific properties in the total income of the assessee.
2. Determination of whether properties at Nos. 2 and 4, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, form part of the impartible estate known as "Burdwan Raj."
3. Reassessment of the case due to conflicting factual conclusions and lack of investigation into the factual position by the assessing authorities.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Tribunal referred a question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the inclusion of income from properties at Nos. 2 and 4, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, in the total income of the assessee. The Addl. CIT revised the assessment to include this income, but the Tribunal, based on previous orders and assumptions about the properties being part of an impartible estate, held that the income did not belong to the assessee. The High Court declined to answer the question and directed the Tribunal to re-hear the appeal to determine if the properties were part of the impartible estate.

2. The crux of the dispute lies in whether the properties at Nos. 2 and 4, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, are part of the impartible estate known as "Burdwan Raj." The assessee argued that these properties did not form part of the impartible estate and were wrongly assumed to be so. The High Court found conflicting factual conclusions and directed the Tribunal to re-examine the case to ascertain if the properties were indeed part of the impartible estate, following the legal principles established in a previous case.

3. The lack of proper investigation into the factual position by the assessing authorities led to the High Court remitting the case back to the Tribunal for a clear finding on whether the disputed properties were part of the impartible estate. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of facts and adherence to legal principles, similar to the approach taken by the Supreme Court in a previous case. Both parties were directed to provide evidence, and the Tribunal was instructed to expedite the hearing of the appeal without any order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of factual accuracy and legal principles in determining the inclusion of income from specific properties in the total income of an assessee, especially when dealing with complex issues such as the nature of an impartible estate. The case underscores the need for a meticulous examination of facts by the assessing authorities and the Tribunal to ensure a fair and just resolution in accordance with the law.