9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been effected in favour of intending purchaser by way of registered sale deed ?" The material facts are as follows : The assessee is an individual. During the relevant period, he was a partner of a firm, Bokaro Diesel. He also carried on a separate business in the name of Krishna Lal and Company. He filed a return showing income of Rs. 13,313 for the assessment year 1978-79 in which he did not disclose the income from the house property which was being shown in the returns in the previous years, on the ground that he had entered into an agreement for its sale and as per the terms of the agreement, with effect from April 1, 1977, on payment of the earnest money from the intending purchaser, one Smt. Usha Kumari, the rent from the house p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 357 dismissed the appeal. It, however, acceded to the request of the Department to refer the question, as indicated above, for an "authoritative pronouncement of law" and that is how the matter has come to this court in the present reference. Mr. K. K. Vidyarthi, learned standing counsel for the Department, at the very outset, accepted the position that the decision of this court in Sahay Properties' case [1983] 144 ITR 357 is applicable to this case on all fours. He nevertheless made submissions on the merits to persuade us to refer this case to a larger Bench since, as he pointed out, even the Tribunal has observed that the decision is contrary to "preponderance" of the judicial opinion exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tending purchaser and it is he and not the seller who is liable to tax on its income. Mr. Vidyarthi submitted that the facts of the present case are distinguishable and, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that the case is covered by the law laid down in Sahay Properties and Investment Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case [1983] 144 ITR 357 (Patna). It is this aspect of the matter which I propose to consider because if the case cannot be distinguished on facts, it would be futile to postpone the hearing of the case merely because the correctness of the decision is under challenge before the Supreme Court and special leave has been granted. Sahay Properties and Investment Co. (P.) Ltd.'s case [1983] 144 ITR 357 (Patna) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriating its income he must be deemed to be the owner within the meaning of section 22 of the Act and was assessable with respect to its income. It could not get away from the liability merely because he had not exercised the option of getting the registration done. In the present case, it appears from the order of the Tribunal, that registration could not be completed as certain formalities were required to be observed, such as obtaining permission of the competent authority for which steps had already been taken by the assessee. One can take notice of the fact that under different statutes prior permission of the competent authority in the matter of transfer of immovable property is a must which usually is a time-consuming affair. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
