9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt-assessee and his co-lessee represents the annual letting value of the building ? " The years of assessments are 1967-68 and 1968-69 and the appeals relating to these years before the Tribunal were disposed of by a common order. We dispose of these tax revision cases also by a common judgment. The facts are simple. The assessee let out a building, which he constructed on a land which was taken on lease by him, for an annual rent of Rs. 33,000 to a company, M/s. Arborites Private Ltd., hereinafter referred to as " the company ". The land on which the building stood was leased by the assessee on a rent of Rs. 1,000 for a period of ten years. But there was an agreement entered into by the assessee with the owner of the land that the buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S. A. L. Narayan Row, Commissioner of Income-tax and said : " We accepted the contention on behalf of the assessee that notional income contemplated by section 23 of the Act, namely, the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let can be different from the rent actually paid." This is what the Supreme Court also said in the decision. It is conceivable that the income actually received from the property in an year may exceed the notional figure. It is not disputed before us that for the purpose of taxation it is the notional figure that must be taken into account and not the actual amount of rent. Having accepted the contention of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en ignored or rejected the finding entered after rejecting such material can be interfered with in income-tax references before the High Court. This is so is now well-established, and we do not think that we should deal with this aspect further. So the question is whether relevant material has been eschewed and that, on unreasonable grounds. The first ground mentioned is not acceptable, because there is inherent evidence in the certificate itself to show that the contract rent was known to the local authorities and was taken into account in the first instance for fixing the annual letting value. In the column under the heading " rent that can be obtained for the building ", Rs. 33,000 is mentioned. It cannot be an accidental coincidence tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est in imposing as much legitimate tax as possible would have ignored this aspect before fixing the annual letting value. Whatever it be, in the absence of material to indicate that there were other relevant considerations which were not taken into account, the certificate and the evidence furnished by it cannot be totally ignored. Prima facie, the certificate affords evidence to sustain the contention of the assessee that the contract rent is in excess of the reasonable rent that can be expected from the building. This item of evidence should not have been eschewed in considering the question as to what is the rent that the building can reasonably be expected to fetch. The finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, vitiated in that it omitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
