9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of the assessee for the years under appeal. This issue has arisen out of a very interesting set of facts, which are as under. 3. One Mr. J.E.D. Fonseca was lessee of the premises, 1,Man Singh Road,New Delhiand was running a hotel in the name and style of Fonseca (P.) Ltd. This lease expired in 1968. During the subsistence of the lease, the land and building in which the hotel was run had become an evacuee property after the partition ofIndia. The title to the said estate, therefore, vested in the Director of Estates, Ministry of Works Housing, Government of India,New Delhi. However, despite the expiry of lease in 1968 said Fonseca continued to be in possession and occupation of the premises. Shri Fonseca died in August 1970. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g disputes with the Director of Estates, Government of India regarding the title of the Director of Estates to the property. 5. However, before the shares could be handed over and before the formal legal agreement could be executed, the Ministry of Works Housing acting through the Director of Estates took possession of the property. Thus, the assessee and his associates had to close down Fonseca Hotel and lost possession of the property at 1,Man Singh Road. Subsequently, the said Ministry of Works Housing handed over the said property to Municipal Corporation ofNew Delhi. With these developments, the IHCL started contending that for reasons and circumstances beyond its control and also for the fact that the assessee and others, did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me entitled to receive his share of the award which was made the rule of the Court. Thus, the assessee received Rs. 2,55,556 in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1979-80 and received further sum of Rs. 6,26,110 in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1980-81. The sum total of these two amounts is Rs. 8,81,666. The assessee by his letter dated24-6-1980informed the ITO, A-Ward, Dehradun about the amounts he had received. Return for that assessment year was filed on21-7-1980. The ITO (Shri R.K. Sharma) made a detailed order for the assessment year 1980-81 on28-3-1983and held that the amount received by the assessee was capital receipt and, 'hence neither the provisions of capital gains are attracted nor any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 and 1978-79 he made independent order on28-4-1983and27-3-1985respectively and insofar as the issue of taxability of the sum of Rs. 8,81,666 is concerned, in these two years, he followed his own order for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 and deleted the amounts. Hence, the grievance of the revenue. 9. From what is stated above, it is clear that the memorandum between IHCL and the assessee and others entered into in March 1975 could not be performed in view of the dispossession of the assessee of the premises by the Ministry of Works Housing through the Director of Estates, Government of India, in relation to which the agreement was arrived at. A stage came when IHCL tried to riggle out of this agreement altogether because in te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
