9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee's income from property of which she was not the owner could be charged to tax under "Income from other sources" under section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership and Taxation of Income from Property: The primary issue was whether the income derived by the assessee as rent from the property, which she was not the legal owner of during the period from April 1, 1959, to February 2, 1963, could be charged to tax under the head "Income from other sources" as per section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) held that although the assessee was not the legal owner until February 2, 1963, she was collecting rental income and thus could be considered the beneficial owner. Therefore, the rental income was chargeable to tax under "Income from other sources" for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1963-64. 2. Assessment by the Appellate Authorities: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) confirmed the ITO's assessment, holding that the assessee was the de facto owner of the property from April 1, 1959, to February 2, 1963, and the income was assessable as "Income from other sources". The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S. A. L. Narayan Row, CIT [1966] 61 ITR 428, upheld the assessee's contention that the rental income could not be taxed under "Income from other sources". The Tribunal held that if the character of the income is such that it falls under "Income from property", it can only be charged under that head and not under the residuary head "Income from other sources". 3. Supreme Court Precedents and Principles: The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the heads of income under section 6 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are mutually exclusive. An income falling under a specific head cannot be reclassified under the residuary head merely because the conditions for chargeability under the specific head are not met. The Supreme Court in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody's case had laid down that income must be classified under one of the specific heads, and if it cannot be charged to tax under the corresponding computing section, it escapes taxation. This principle was applied to the assessee's case, determining that the rental income, being of the nature of "Income from property", could not be reclassified under "Income from other sources". 4. Double Taxation Concern: The Tribunal also noted that accepting the revenue's contention could lead to double taxation, where the same income could be taxed in the hands of the owner under section 9 as "Income from property" and in the hands of the recipient under section 12 as "Income from other sources". The absence of any provision for double taxation necessitated avoiding such a construction. 5. Relevant Provisions of the Income-tax Acts: The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Income-tax Act, 1961, noting that the scheme of classification and chargeability of income under different heads remained consistent between the two Acts. Section 6 of the 1922 Act and section 14 of the 1961 Act classify income into specific heads, and the corresponding computing sections determine the chargeability under each head. 6. Calcutta High Court Decision: The court also considered a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mrs. Roma Bose v. ITO [1974] 95 ITR 299, which dealt with the chargeability of professional income received after discontinuance of the profession. The court noted that the new Act explicitly included provisions for such income under section 176, which was not applicable to the assessee's case of rental income from property. Conclusion: The court concluded that the assessee's rental income from the property, of which she was not the owner, could not be charged to tax under the head "Income from other sources" under section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals and direct the ITO to modify the orders was upheld. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the respondent.
|
