1979 (1) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of income from house property in the assessee's total income under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Computation of the annual value of the house property for income tax purposes.
3. Determination of the owner of the house property for tax purposes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Income from House Property:
The primary issue was whether the income from a house property purchased by the assessee's wife using a gift from the assessee should be included in the assessee's total income under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) included Rs. 1,500 as income from the house property in the assessee's income for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70. The assessee argued that the income from the self-occupied property should be computed as nil because the wife had no other income, invoking the proviso to Section 23(2). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) accepted the assessee's contention and granted a reduction.

2. Computation of Annual Value:
The Tribunal held that once the income from house property is includible in the hands of the assessee, the annual value of the assessee's residential house must be computed at 10% of the other income of the assessee, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh [1973] 89 ITR 1. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that Section 23(2) and Section 64(1)(iv) operate in different fields. Section 23(2) deals with the computation of income from self-occupied property, while Section 64(1)(iv) pertains to the inclusion of income from assets transferred to a spouse. The High Court emphasized that the annual value should be computed based on the owner's other income, not the assessee's total income.

3. Determination of the Owner:
The High Court clarified that the owner of the house property must be determined according to Section 27(i), which deems an individual to be the owner if they transfer the property to their spouse or minor child without adequate consideration. In this case, the assessee gifted cash to his wife, who then purchased the house property. Therefore, the assessee could not be deemed the owner of the house property under Section 27(i). The Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh's case was misplaced because the facts differed significantly. The Supreme Court's decision involved a direct transfer of house property, whereas, in this case, the transfer was of cash, not the property itself.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in including the income from the house property in the assessee's total income and computing the annual value based on the assessee's other income. The reference was accepted, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.