9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs thereof. At the time of the settlement M/s Ghaziabad Engineering Co. P. Ltd. was a tenant on behalf of the aforesaid assesses in the said property. The said company had taken the premises on lease for the purposes of the residence of Shri P.N. Aggarwal and his family. Shri P.N. Aggarwal is the managing director of the said company and is the husband of Smt. Leela Devi and the father of Shri Harsh Kumar, the Settlors. A monthly rent of Rs. 4,000 was being paid by the said company to the trust on account of the aforesaid tenancy in the year under consideration. While framing the assessment for the year under consideration i.e. for assessment year 1981-82, the previous year for which ended on31-3-1981, the ITO took the view that the rent pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amily are also the trustees and the shareholders of M/s Ghaziabad Engineering P. Ltd. and since the property is being used by this very family through the Ghaziabad Engineering Co., Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable and the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. NDMC [1980] 122 ITR 700 and other similar decisions had no relevance. Similar arguments were raised before the CIT(A), who observed that although in law the standard rent payable for this property may be even less than Rs. 4,000 and although the trust cannot raise the rent still considering the market conditions prevailing during the previous year, the trust must face the corresponding hardship of being deprived of the benefit of section 11 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in the trust property. According to him, therefore, section 13 came into play and the benefit of section 11 had to be denied to the trust. 8. We have given our careful consideration to the respective arguments. It is no longer in dispute that the property in question is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act and the standard rent of this property is below Rs. 4,000 p.m. which is the rent being paid by the tenant M/s Ghaziabad Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. In Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of determination of annual letting value under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957 held that when the rent control legislation provides for fixation of standard rent which alone and nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g P. Ltd., to the assessee-trust is considered to be more than the standard rent assessable under the Delhi Rent Control Act, it is not permissible to say that the rent charged by the trust is inadequate and was intended to confer any benefit on the settlors or their relatives. The whole approach of the authorities below has, therefore, been unfair to the assessee and the denial of the benefit of section 11 to the trust was unjustified. For the same reasons, the addition made by the ITO to the rental income is indirect violation of the law as explained by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish and Amolak Ram Khosla. We, therefore, reverse the findings of the authorities below and hold that the assessee has not incurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
