9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment under section 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961 for income from property sale and rental income. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi-A involved a case where the assessee, an individual, had filed her return of income for the assessment year 1982-83, declaring income at Rs. 58,700. The income in question was derived from a property sold to her son, and the rental income from the property was not initially disclosed in her return. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under section 147(b) and included the rental income in the total income, resulting in a higher assessment of Rs. 71,910. The assessee contended that the rental income should have been assessed in the hands of her son, who had possession of the property and was enjoying the rental income. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the son had indeed paid a substantial amount for the property and was in possession as per the agreement. The son had also been assessed for the rental income separately. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that it was not justifiable to tax two individuals for the same income. Therefore, the reassessment order was annulled, upholding the assessee's position. The Department challenged the annulment, referring to judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Tribunal reviewed the judgments and concurred with the interpretation that the original owner of the property should not be assessed for income when possession and enjoyment had been transferred to another party. In this case, since the son was in possession and had been assessed for the rental income, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned AAC and rejected the departmental appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, ruling that the rental income from the property should not be taxed in her hands as the son was in possession and had already been assessed for the income. The judgment emphasized the principle of not taxing two individuals for the same income and upheld the annulment of the reassessment order.
|
