1975 (8) TMI 57 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Ownership of property bearing No. C-520 Defence Colony, New Delhi - whether it belongs to the respondent assessee Smt. Amrit Kaur or to her son Shri Dilsher Singh.

Detailed Analysis:
The six appeals by the Revenue involved a common issue regarding the ownership of property No. C-520 Defence Colony, New Delhi, for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1971-72. Smt. Amrit Kaur, the respondent assessee, claimed that the property belonged to her son Shri Dilsher Singh from her first marriage. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially accepted this claim, but later, in the assessment year 1966-67, concluded that since there was no registered transfer of the property to her son, Smt. Amrit Kaur remained the owner, and the income should be assessed in her hands.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reviewed the case and determined that on Smt. Amrit Kaur's remarriage, she forfeited her interest in the property, which then vested in her son Dilsher Singh. The AAC relied on legal principles and documents to support this conclusion, directing the ITO to exclude the property income from Smt. Amrit Kaur's total income for all relevant assessment years. The Revenue appealed this decision.

The main contention on behalf of the Revenue was that Smt. Amrit Kaur did not inherit the property, and as the property was not transferred by a registered deed to her son, she remained the full owner. The Revenue argued that Smt. Amrit Kaur's actions, such as writing to the Ministry of Rehabilitation for transfer, did not constitute a legal transfer. The Revenue cited legal precedent to support their argument.

On the other hand, the assessee argued that the property was allotted to Smt. Amrit Kaur as a widow of her first husband, and the construction was financed from funds inherited from her late husband. The assessee contended that on her remarriage, she forfeited her rights in the property, which then vested in her son as per legal provisions. The assessee presented legal interpretations and documents to support this position.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the facts and legal aspects of the case. It noted that the property was allotted to Smt. Amrit Kaur as a widow and that her rights in the property ceased upon remarriage, transferring to her son by operation of law. The Tribunal referred to relevant legal provisions and precedents to support its decision. Considering all aspects, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.